What's your definition of Web 2.0?

Buzzword Busting

[lexipixel]

It seems every other job posting for web developers these days is asking for "Web 2.0" experience.

While the term has been bandied about since 2004, I have yet to see a clear definition...

Mash ups? Social Networking? Round corners?

What does it mean to you?

[phranque]

i think of it as a catch-all for the capabilities provided by new web technologies, such as:
- decentralized generation of content, including user-generated content
- "fatter" clients that are more active and interactive
- personalization of content
- embedded widgets

[Dollface]

You're on the money phranque! Its said to be version 2 of the net, the second generation (although not literally) where the end user is not just a passive viewer anymore. Users have more control of content with the ability to customize and contribute to the sites they visit. There is a high level of interactivity and participation which is very different from the way things used to work where only the webmaster or creator had the ability to change/edit/add content.

In terms of design, I would say it usually consists of bold logos, slick/clean interfaces, big text, splashes of strong color, drop-shadows, gradients and reflections. Think clean, easy and glossy!

In reality, its really just a whole lot of hype and will probably end just as fast as it started when the next "it-thing" arrives.

[lexipixel]

I agree with both of you, (in fact we have all said about the same thing in different words).

So now we have a "definition".

My next question is: Do you, (meaning anyone reading this -- especially webmasters), have concerns about where "Web 2.0" is headed?

My major concern is fractured control and resulting fractured content -- especially in the widgets and mash up aspect. I can just see it -- a few years from now thousands, maybe millions of web pages where some of the components of the page/site are defunct, broken links, incompatible versions, etc.

I've always tried to build sites with as few dependencies as possible. If using a script, CMS, payment processor, search tool, or other "widget" meant having to count on that widget's home continuing to exist -- and depended on my keeping the site's widget "updated" to use them, I opted for a local solution, (one where 100% of the code, functionality, settings, etc.. could be controlled on site).

I can remember MapQuest changing the format of their URL and query string -- every map I had linked to a site stopped working. It was more work than the site owner wanted to pay for to revise, so we killed off all the specific links and put a single generic MapQuest link on the site.

Does anyone else share this concern?

[trillianjedi]

Similar thread from 2 years ago:-

[webmasterworld.com...]