Hacker News Reader

Comment by amalcon | Hacker News Reader

I still haven't figured out what Web 2.0 is supposed to be. The closest I've been able to figure is that it's either a pure buzzword, or synonymous with DHTML.

If NoSQL goes the way of AJAX, that's fine. It's not a very good term, but at least it means something useful. If it goes the way of Web 2.0, no thanks -- I'd much prefer a different term, any different term, so long as it's actually descriptive.

View on HN

"Web 2.0" doesn't have a crisp definition. It encompasses a huge variety of things ranging from google maps to flickr. Overall it represents anything that feels like a step up from the web 1.0ish static html, grey background world.

A few defining characteristics of many "web 2.0" sites:

- Application vs. static content, nearly all content is dynamically generated, per user

- Use of AJAX to provide responsive interactivity instead of whole-page-refresh per-click

- Social media aspects, leverage of user generated content in the form of comments, media, etc.

- Use of web-centric graphic and usability design. No more default gray backgrounds, no more horrid framed interfaces, no more geocities syndrome. Tight, coherent layout trending toward minimalism. Use of proven usability enhancement accepted standards such as breadcrumbs, search, standard header or footer navigation menu, "click logo to go to home page", etc.

All of these trends led to a flowering of 2nd generation uses of the web which generally became lumped into the "web 2.0" category.

A web-store with an animated "under construction" banner that uses mostly default fonts and colors, contains a simple home page of static content which links to a few pages filled with tables of inventory listings and instructions on how to send in orders via email, phone, and by printing out/filling in/mailing an order form is web 1.0. A web-store that is sleekly designed with full searchability as well as browsing by category/manufacturer/what-have-you, a proper shopping cart system, a full detail page for each item with an image, detailed description including formatted details and maybe customer reviews, per-item inventory tracking, etc. is web 2.0.

Two more meanings of Web 2.0 to add to the mix:

1. A functional app with a modern, attractive design, as opposed to a legacy app that feels clunky and old. This is how it's used by non-technical people at my job. A web site can be made Web 2.0 by updating its aesthetics. Fixing bugs also makes it feel more Web 2.0.

2. A site where users can add "content" that can be seen by other users. This is how it's used by non-technical folks on campus, according to a friend of mine. Sounds reasonable, but it turns out they apply the definition quite literally, so any site with forums or comments is Web 2.0.

Web 2.0 can't be synonymous with DHTML, the buzzwords are temporally separated by about ten years. DHMTL was what Netscape called its <layer> tag, before it got blown out of the water by IE 4's radically superior .innerHTML. (And I use "radically" carefully; it rewrote the web as we thought we knew it.)

Web 2.0 = Ajax + Social Media, basically. Websites that don't have to refresh the entire page to conduct user interaction, plus social news/networking/blogging/etc.

Don't forget gradients and rounded corners..

The lack of sharp edges are what make it safe for everyday users!

Web 2.0 is the publishing and content that evolve with the web. For example the Google index gets page rank as a side effect of other pages on the web, rather than an assessment of the content itself.

http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

Hope this helps.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com