What is Web 2.0? We tend to throw the term around a lot, but can we actually define it? The designation 2.0 indicates an entirely new version, not just an incremental upgrade to the existing system. Wikipedia, itself often considered a Web 2.0 product, says that Web 2.0
"refers to a perceived second generation of web-based communities and hosted services — such as social-networking sites, wikis and folksonomies — which aim to facilitate collaboration and sharing between users. The term became popular following the first O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004. Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but to changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the web. According to Tim O'Reilly, "Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform."
Some technology experts, notably Tim Berners-Lee, have questioned whether one can use the term in a meaningful way, since many of the technology components of "Web 2.0" have existed since the early days of the Web." (all links are from the original Wikipedia article)
Internet pundit Tim O'Reilly describes Web 2.0 in part as "The Web as Platform,"--the Web page is actually an application. Some of these applications, such as Google Docs, which I am using to write my post right now, are clearly applications. By the way, the handy little rollovers you see when you mouse over the links on this post are created in Google Docs, which includes a word processor that can post directly to Blogger and other blog accounts. Other "Web 2.0" products include many of the social networking sites people use, MySpace, Facebook, Flickr, and many others. The intelligent ads, Adsense developed by Google are also part of this transition. Many of these products rely on user created content, be it content a user physically creates or content that the user finds. Example of the latter would be Digg and Slashdot. One of the things that makes Web 2.0 intriguing to me, and others, is that so many of the technologies can be tied into each other. For example, I'm writing this in Google Docs, posting it to Blogger, and if I wanted to, I could embed the YouTube video clips I've linked to directly into my Blogger page.The technology behind many of the technologies is Ajax, Asynchronous JavaScript + XML. Wikipedia's article on Ajax is worth reading over. If you are planning to work in new media, you've got to at least know what the term means and the basics of what's going on.
Several people have tried to put the ideas of Web 2.0 into short video. Michael Welsh, a professor at Kansas State University posted a short video early this year which tried to define the idea of Web 2.0. You can also read a transcript of an early version. He's not alone, here's another short video, based in part on the Wikipedia article, describing Web 2.0.Not surprisingly, there are podcasts that are geared specifically to Web 2.0 issues. The Web 2.0 Show discusses many of the Web 2.0 technologies and products, as well as providing interviews with a variety of people involved in the industry. Episode 1 includes an interview with the founder of Wordpress, a blogging tool/site, and a discussion of what Web 2.0 is. It's also an example of how to use a blog/Web site to support a podcast. Note the subscribe options on the page. You might also check out the Web 2.0 Summit podcasts on iTunes--no I don't expect you to listen to all of them, but it's worth listening to at least one (or part of one). While you are in iTunes, see what else you can find on technology and Web 2.0.
Also for next class, you should have gone through the following tutorials:
UT Austin iMovie Walkthrough (They have some other nice tutorials in their Graphics & Multimedia Section)
Avid FreeDV Tutorials (DV Xpress and FreeDV have the interface is the same interface. I can get you a copy of FreeDV if you would like one)
There also some iMovie tutorials on Atomic Learning (see the syllabus for the address and password)If you would like to, you can check out a camera from Rob in the basement and try capturing some video and editing it in iMovie (keep the import to under 3 minutes if you do not have a drive yet--remember that the Digital Media Studio in the library is open late (I think 2:00 a.m.). I'll have hard drive information up soon and will also send it by email.
Have a good weekend!
16 comments:
I view Web 2.0 as online resources that allow users to easily publish content. Individuals no longer have to know html or have Web design software, such as Dreamweaver, to publish content online. For the most part, all you need is a computer that connects to the Internet to publish content online.
I really liked Bart Decrem’s comparison of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. He described Web 2.0 as the “participatory Web” because it allows users to generate content easily. A receiver of information can instantaneously become a sender of information by clicking on the comment link in a blog. Decrem regards Web 1.0, on the other hand, as only an information source because users cannot directly publish or post information online without the privileges of a webmaster.
In O’Reilly’s definition of Web 2.0, he focuses on how businesses can use Web 2.0. This is an area in which I am interested. For example, CEOs of major corporations, including GM, are now blogging. Many corporations are trying to make their CEOs and corporations seem more personable and open. So instead of having a CEO who seems unapproachable or almost inhuman, employees and customers can see another side of the CEO. Interestingly, blog experts suggest CEOs should not allow their public relations personnel to write these blog entries. The experts say that blog readers can easily identify the PR dialogue. This, of course, would damage that CEO’s and/or company’s reputation, which defeats the purpose of public relations.
My favorite aspect of Web 2.0 is the fact that it is easy to use. I like the idea that I can publish information online instantaneously, without expensive software and a lot of technical skill. I also like the idea that my content has the potential to be viewed by many individuals around the world.
In the past, I have used blogs and social bookmarking, but I am really looking forward to learning how to create podcasts and being able to create videos. I am hoping I can use some of these tools in the classes I teach. In addition, I am hoping that learning how to create and use Web 2.0 tools will help me get new ideas for research.
While Web 2.0 may use the same technology and coding languages as what some might call Web 1.0, Web 2.0, in my opinion, represents a paradigm shift in the uses and gratifications of the Internet.
Web 2.0 creates a platform for information dissemination that is easy to use from both ends (the creator and the user). While Web 1.0 was mainly concerned with presenting information through long text entries written by paid Web producers, Web 2.0 allows the layperson to create and publish their own content.
Sites like Wikipedia create a forum where users can post their own opinions without any knowledge of how to produce a Web site. Web 2.0 has taken the coding-heavy nature of Web 1.0 and left it to the professionals. Now, the average computer user can use a program such as iWeb to create and publish their own Web site without having to realize the intricate nature of Internet coding.
Also, in my opinion, Web 2.0 has developed because of the universality of certain technologies. Although video on the Internet is not necessarily a new concept, most users were unable to access videos because of CODEC differences or their modem speed. However, with the introduction of Flash video, not only is Internet video a viable format for dissemination, it is now widely accessible. Flash has an estimated penetration of 95% of the computing world. So, with the ability to compress any video into a flash format, the Internet is now a second screen for the dissemination of video materials. Sites like Youtube take the legwork out of packaging video in a flash format by compressing the videos after they are uploaded. Also, television networks have seen the useful nature of Web 2.0 and have started to allow their shows to be seen on their Web sites in an “on demand” format.
Web 2.0 has changed the electronic media business because it has taken passive mediums (such as television shows) and allowed them to be mixed with active mediums (such as the internet). This mixing has created a new medium in which the users are active and yet passive at the same time.
According to me, Web 2.0 brings the 'we' back in the Web. No longer is the Internet just a means to source information and entertainment, it is also now a medium to share, improve, connect and redefine knowledge content, products and relationships.
I feel the new face of convergent media is Web 2.0, as its simplicity is its strongest feature. You don't have to be a coder, programmer or a technical person to get the best out of Web 2.0.
Personally, I have been using some features of Web 2.0 without realising they are a part of Web 2.0; such as blogs, wikis, RSS feeds and podcasts. These are my favorite 2.0 tools. I especially find RSS feeds suited to my lifestyle and podcasts as innovative new ways of transmitting information. Blogging is another new form of communication which allows people to share ideas and thoughts and a novel new platform for self expression; be it specific or general. Human interaction has become that more personal and dynamic. Imagine sharing a like minded connection with someone miles away,communicating at the speed of light and then getting a response as fast. 'Diggs' is another handy new feature which allows me to get specific information quicker than any other source. "Digg it" may well be on its way to becoming the reprised version of "Google it".
Businesses have always been quick to capitalize on growing trends; and corporations jumping on to the Web 2.0 bandwagon seems to be on the rise. Sites such as Youtube, Facebook and Myspace; which have tremendous reach among both young and older people these days have become hot targets for advertising messages and marketing campaigns. Even politics has found its way into this new medium, via the 'Facebook election debates' and 'Youtube broadcasts'. How successful they turn out to be is another question, as the youth typically have a history of rebelling against infiltration into their personal space by profit minded corporations.
As a marketspace for trade, Web 2.0 has its merits. Whether it completely makes brick and mortar corporations redundant,remains to be seen. There are some things technology cannot replace; and at its very core is the human factor. Only those corporations that have the ability to make a sincere connection with 2.0 netizens will have the chance to profit off them. Being an advertising student looking to continuing my career in brand management, I will waiting to see hot new trends emerge in Web 2.0 which will allow my clients to reach their target audience in fresh new ways.
C&S channels along with their main advertisers are starting to integrate themselves with the web, and Web T.V may well be the future blueprint for some businesses. I foresee a paradigm shift in the way marketers tailor their message to fit in with the new business model created by Web 2.0. A simpler, more emotional and personal form of content that is more organic than obtrusive. Likewise,I believe consumers will look for convenience and ease of usage to access goods and services.For example, being able to buy a car with the click of a button on a virtual ad sponsored by Ford, tailor made for him/her from a menu on the television screen while watching the SuperBowl in high definition may soon be a reality!
What I gathered from the posting and the videos and such was that Web 2.0 is all about converging. All of these separate things converge into one larger thing. It’s interactive which is both good and bad. I thought the end of the Michael Welsh video was especially thought-provoking at the end, when he went through the list of things we would have to rethink. “Copyright, authorship, privacy” all stood out to me as incredibly salient points.
When someone posts a picture on a site, like Wikipedia for example, about a place they visited to update an informational page, does the person automatically lose authorship of that photo now because it is on a public website? This becomes especially important for photographers and retailers who use the web to post pictures of their work. Because the photographer posts a photo online, does that mean s/he has lost some authorship, because many things can be copied into another, or at least linked. I suppose this is why photo studios started putting their studio name on many photos and especially posted pictures. But what if someone else uploads a purchased photo onto their computer, posts it somewhere and others have access to print it out at their discretion. Wasn’t that a violation of authorship? Yet it’s done all the time?
Can someone copyright a blog? When is a photo or a blog posted on the internet an invasion of privacy? These average Joes on the street are not journalists often, and could violate libel laws? But because this is a public thing should those who choose to post be held to the same standard? They aren’t usually paid to put out their opinion. I know laws currently do not exist for such people, but could they? Should they? I saw on a news show, like 60 minutes, that often in public schools, and especially middle schools, the kids are taking their digital cameras into private places like locker rooms or bathroom and taking embarrassing photos of other students without their knowledge or consent and then posting them online to their friends. Of course the show had the extreme case where one kid committed suicide over it, and that is not the norm reaction, but things like that can be very hurtful and harmful. Are those students violating privacy laws? If so, should the minor be held responsible or should the not-so-techno-savvy parent? All big challenges for this new Web 2.0.
Web 2.0 has allowed a connection for people all around the world to share their creations, thoughts, ideas and so on. It has taken away the feel of simply a database of information and created an avenue for participation by all involved. Whether by posting a blog, a video or creating a podcast or a website there are many ways for users to become involved in the landscape and development of the Web.
This new participatory Web is changing the face of how people communicate, find entertainment and go about everyday life. This is being noticed by executives of news, retail and entertainment companies as well as politicians. Facebook and MySpace have become familiar ground for presidential candidates, companies like Apple and Cingular. CNN, ABC News and others have created sites which allow the users to report their take on the news around the world. Television networks are showing episodes of their shows online, movies and videos can be downloaded and viewed on your computer, cell phones and mp3 players. The technology has allowed for a constant connection to the Web and the ability to instantly post something for millions to see.
However along with the good also comes the bad. Privacy, authorship, copyright and other laws will have to be reshaped in order to control the misuse of this advancing technology.
My favorite parts of Web 2.0 are blogs, Facebook and YouTube. With each of these I can keep informed as to what is going on with friends and family or simply see what is going on in the world around me. I have used blogs, social networking sites and done some video work. While I have viewed podcasts, I have never created one and I'm excited to have the chance to work on some.
As Tim O’Reilly defined Web 2.0 companies success depends on their ability to make the interfaces that would be used by more and more people. Web 2.0 is about users learning how to communicate with other users and not publishers. Web 2.0 applications allow people to generate their own content and share it with others, it is more like a conversation rather than lecture. As one of the CEOs pointed out web 2.0 creates participant economy versus consumer economy. With the advancement of web 2.0 we see a tremendous increase in online users – up to 1 billion. People tend to spend more and more time online cutting time for using other media, some experts believe that TV is the one that is losing its audience. Another element to consider is changing demographics- nowadays it is the millennium generation not just computer geeks who are going online using web 2.0 applications. Web 2.0 could be considered as a paradigm shift, which change the way information online is consumed. As the authors of the web2.0 show pointed out such applications as Flicker puts power to the audience. They provide an example of July 7 (London) and how people took pictures of destruction by their phones and upload the same day on the Flicker. It definitely changes the way media operates and the way the audience can have its word in the news reporting and news gathering.
I believe Web 2.0 is like the 2nd generation of the Internet. It is like have a 1st generation electronic product and having a better more functional and relevant use for the product come out, like a 2nd generation. Web 2.0 is the program and functions that the web can now do like facebook programs and myspace, wikis and blogs. The best video that I watched that explained Web 2.0 to be was, “The Machine is Us/ing Us Final Version.” I think the Web 2.0 refers to page that you the user can edit and contribute your ideas and thoughts to the web. It is like anyone can be a web publisher now. Also you can contribute word blogs and video blogs that express your personality and people can log in and read or watch your blog so now anyone can have their fifteen minutes of fame as long as you have a computer. My favorite aspect of Web 2.0 is wiki pages, especially wikipedia. I use it for all sorts of things like pop culture, music information, and learning things about information I never would have known if it had been for the invention of wiki pages and wikipedia. I also like facebook and myspace for keeping up with friends and for the use of the 80’s cover band I’m in. We use both of those sites to promote our band and let our fans and potential fans and friends know when and where we are playing. We use myspace to post our shows and songs and information about us and we use facebook to create events that we invite all of our facebook friends to. There are potential downsides to web sites like those, like private information that people post and also contact information. People can only know and find what you let them, so obviously if you do not want someone knowing about your drunken partying and so forth then you shouldn’t post pictures on social networking sites. I say this because employers are now using web sites like facebook and myspace to learn about interviewees. So the web or the evolving Web 2.0 is an exciting thing. The only problems are potential identity thefts the more educated people become about the Internet. I look forward to the future of the web and what new possibilities it can bring.
From what I gather, Web 2.0 is a way for the users of the internet to organize content on the web. As one of the videos claimed, we, or you, are the ones responsible for the organization of certain sites. With Web 2.0, users can produce and share their own content via the web. Much of the internet is now user driven. Web 2.0 also allows users to connect with other users of the web; social networking us a large part of Web 2.0.
I enjoy Web 2.0 mostly because it is user driven. I enjoy being able to post my own thoughts and opinions, as well as read other’s thoughts and opinions. One Web site that could be considered a product of Web 2.0 that I view often is Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes is essentially a blog site all about movies. Although I do not contribute to the site myself, I often view the site to read the users’ opinions about certain movies. The site allows its members to share their reviews and their movie lists, such as best or worst movies.
I also enjoy social networking Web sites. Social networking Web sites allow an internet user to connect with people that they may not come in contact with on a day to day basis. You can share common interest and upload such things as pictures to share with your friends. I have certain people that I wonder about, but I do not care to talk to on the phone. Social networking sites allow me to keep in contact with these certain people without actually having to speak with them. These sites also allow me to keep in contact with those I may not be able to without the use of the internet.
I cannot say exactly where the internet is going, but it is definitely becoming more user-driven. In my opinion, blogs and wikis make for a more interesting read. I enjoy a site that is more user-driven, rather than the structured sites of the past.
Web 2.0 is a completely new word for my vocabulary, although I know I have been familiar with its applications and general concepts for a while. I have been using the applications of Web 2.0 on a daily basis for some time – by looking at the blogs of family and friends, watching YouTube videos, and other such things. Taking all this into account, I would say that a basic definition of Web 2.0 for the technologically illiterate would be the next level that the Internet has advanced to from the original basic email pplications. Because of the software advancement, it is now possible to create Web sites that have more than just text - including video, pictures, and extensive graphics – as well as contribution opportunities for users other than the original creator. More than ever before, people have the ability to reach a global audience with specific messages for very little money. This is changing how the world views sources of information.
Web 2.0 is strengthening theories such as uses and gratifications and hegemony. The more that researchers study how the Internet is being used by the general public and the motivation for the actions, results show that people are getting news and information from a wider variety of sources, and that these sources impact the global views of those people. It has drastically changed the traditional approach to covering the news that the three major networks once had. They have had to step up to the plate and prove that: 1) they are worthy of the time it takes to watch the news and 2) they have what it takes to produce news around the clock since 24 hour days are the norm. This ever developing change by the traditional media is one of my favorite parts of Web 2.0. It is interesting to see how the media are keeping up with “the times” by adding comment sections to the end of news stories and providing interactive areas to their Web sites. Perhaps they think that keeping people involved will keep them interested.
Web 2.0 in my opinion is the ability for users to have input in the data and information available on the internet. The termonology “web 2.0” is new for me, but the capabilties of web 2.0 applications, I am familiar with and are a part of my daily internet routine. As my experiences with the web have expanded over the years I have gone from an observer to an active participant . This change occurred because of web 2.0 capabilities that I have participated in; for example facebook, myspace, podcasting(iTunes), youTube, blogging and other areas in the web where I have the ability to provide input. Web 2.0 has offered the general public , on the internet, the ability to partake in the exchange of information and expanded the capabilities of one person. We now exchange information 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, locally, nationally and globally.
The change from just a platform of information to an intergrated system of users and contributors is impacting everything; from the way research is done to the way the news is reported. These applications and capabilities are, in my opinion, continuously impacting and changing the media industry. The media industry is continuing to evolve and expand, for example the networks enabling viewers to watch mainstream entertainment on the web and the news coverage that was once restricted to certain times (ie: morning, noon and night), which is now available on the internet within minutes of the actual event. Although this change does come with downfalls, like the accuracy of the information and the war between those that create entertainment and the broadcast networks, this expansion has brought about a new age of media and new power for the users.
The capabilities available through Web 2.0 applications have created an information exchange that is more user driven. In my opinion this has forever changed the internet from a simple source, to an interaction of ideas and people; as O’Reilly said, [the web is]“an attitude, not a technology.”
Web 2.0 is a loose description of user-friendly Web applications, and gives the individual the capacity to generate content on the Web. Each of the links we had to read emphasized the idea of ease of use and user-generated content in their definitions of Web 2.0. I also see Web 2.0 as allowing indivdiuals to interact without regard for time or space.
Manuel Castells is a sociologist who wrote a philosophy called "The Rise of the Network Society" in which he talks about how the Internet and Web have subverted time and space. I read the first volume of his work for a class I took last semester and have seen several connections between new media and his discussion.
After reading and viewing this post, I think that Web 2.0 is a prime example of what Castells was discussing. The interactivity and connectivity, and near instantaneous speeds that Web 2.0 offers make the traditional concepts of time and space irrelevant. No longer to you have to wait even a day for the post office to deliver your message to your mom, or wait until the morning news is delivered to you. You can simply log on, and interact with information. Distance and time between people and media are completely eliminated by the Web. Likewise, because the Web has developed so quickly (and already has a 2.0), people have not had time to reflect on the ramifcations that subverting time and space might have in their daily, social, and cultural lives.
Web 2.0 becomes even more compelling from this point of view. I think that it has moved beyond our control, for lack of a better word. Although an indivdiual is in control of their interactions, I think that the entirety of the Web is beyond comprehension (at least my comprehension) and control. As Michael Wesch pointed out in the "Digital Ethnography," "The machine is using us/the machine is us". Frankly, his video freaked me out a little, which is also why I think the enormity of the Web is beyond comprehension.
Don't get me wrong, I think Web 2.0 is amazing. I think it's a very liberating form of communication and interaction; I just don't think that people (myself included) have had the time to fully think about the impact that it will have. I think my favorite Web 2.0 products/features would have to include YouTube, and the ability to post comments. I think blogging is also interesting, but I have just not gotten into it that much.
As far as how Web 2.0 has/will change the electronic media industry...I think it's constantly changing that industry, as well as media industries in general. Traditional media are constantly looking for ways to credibily enter the platform, as well as interact with people. The pace with which Web 2.0 changes presents a huge challenges for all industries. Knowing how to interact with it, and how it can benefit one's business is difficult to do.
In short, I think Web 2.0 is a revolutionary form of communication, of which the potential has yet to be fully realized or understood.
To me, Web 2.0 reflects another ‘active audience’— the kind of audience is that usually studied in connection with television. When Internet was first developed, the main purpose was to diffuse information. Users were generally happy with all kinds of information on the Internet with a one-mouse clicking process. Now, most users are not satisfied with just getting information through the Internet; they want something more. That something motivates the birth of Web 2.0. Web users want to be more creative and represent their own perspective through the Internet and their activities create new types of social networking in the cyber world.
It seems that Web 2.0 presents the Web user as a producer and consumer at the same time. Web 2.0 blurs the distinction between the concepts of provider and consumer. On Web 2.0, everyone can have either position. Also, it might be hard to figure out who is original provider. Therefore, the electronic media industries might look at Web 2.0 positively or negatively. On the bright side, Web 2.0 encourages the direct participation of consumers with industries with low or no payment. However, from a less advantageous perspective, while most industries can have lots of opportunities, the competition and risk is high. This has already been shown in similar types of Web 2.0 products such as MySpace and Facebook. Web 2.0 as a “do it yourself medium” encourages users to listen to various voices from all over the world; however, it causes the challenges of authorship and copyright issues. Some guidelines would help this situation, but with Web 2.0, all those copyright and authority issues rely on users. There should be some laws to control these issues, but, again, we return to the question of how those laws might be established.
What I like about Web 2.0 is the fact that I can do what I want to do. For example, I can write some comments about a movie that I watched or a book that I read on my Facebook. Or I can create my video and post it at Youtube. Also, on Flickr, I can share my pictures and look at other photos based on my interests.
With concerning the comparison of Web 2.0 with Web 1.0, I’m curious about further steps after Web 2.0. Will Web 3.0 come out at some point? And after that, what could inspire the next step?
Upon first hearing the term Web 2.0 years ago I thought it was going to be a revolutionary change in the way the World Wide Web, the Internet, was seen and used. It would be completely updated and changed; “a new version, as the 2.0 would suggest” as Youngblood stated. Web 2.0 would allow non tech-savvy people to easily use the Internet.; in a sense, Web 2.0 would make the Internet open to more people.
It seems, to me, the overall difference between “Web 1.0” and “Web 2.0” is very small, at least in the basic sense that the Internet is still the Internet. People still get online to look up various web sites and gather information for school papers, work presentations or just general knowledge. However, Web 2.0 has allowed more interaction, especially for the average user. With Web 2.0 we are seeing a lot of “social sites” such as Facebook and MySpace. Sites where people put up information and share with other people, all around the world. It has done wonders because we can reconnect with old friends, meet new friends, discuss information, get people point of views on things and not have to leave our house.
In the Tim O’Reilly video, he states when giving his definition of Web 2.0 “The network is the platform,” and “users ad value.” This shows that Web 2.0 is geared towards being much more socially useable. There is a huge growth in Web sites that allow users to post information regarding various topics. Such sites include Digg, Slashdot and Wikipedia. In the U Tech Tips Web 2.0 video, its gives some examples of Web 1.0 sites vs. Web 2.0 sites. “Double Click is a Web 1.0 site in which you choose the content for your Web site. Google Adsense is a Web 2.0 site – its picks ad content based on the content of your page.” Another example is “Kodak Express, a Web 1.0 site, where you upload pictures to get them printed. Flickr is a 2.0 site – you upload pictures and share them with everyone; with Flickr you can print your pictures OR anyone else’s.”
I was impressed with the video by Michael Welsh. Especially when he states “the machine is using us…the machine is us.” This is a pretty powerful statement because when you think about, yes we are the one who put information into the computer but it is the one who gives us information we request in return. So essentially, we are in fact the machines. Especially when you think about how much we rely on computers and other technology.
As far as Web 2.0 sites, I like Flickr. Being a photographer, Flickr allows me to look at millions of photos posted by other people around the world and get ideas for my own photography work.
Web 2.0 is not only more user friendly, but it allows the user to participate. A key element of Web 2.0 is the social web. Web 2.0 applications interact more with the user and lets the user participate in forms of tagging, editing and contributing to a wiki and/or blogging. Blogging, youtube and flickr allow people to easily contribute information to all users. With Web 2.0, users can interact and participate without having to know the complicated language and code web designers use to create web sites. Web 2.0 is iterative- users can add features very easily, which encourages people to contribute their input and not just be a bystander. With the development of XML, which separates form and content and only focuses on defining/describing content, data can be exported without formatting constraints. Users do not need to know the complicated code to upload content to the web, such as in blogs and youtube. XML makes automated data exchange possible and two sites can “mash” data together, creating an enriched web. After learning about Web 2.0, I came to the realization that I use Web 2.0 applications everyday and had no idea! I use blogs such as facebook and myspace as a form of communication of my thoughts and/or ideas. Facebook and myspace link me to people and allow me to share information and photos. The combination of technologies used in Web 2.0 applications provide a way for mass publishing, which makes the web more diverse. Web 2.0 allows more information from a number of users to be disseminated across the web. Web 2.0 links people and people create the web which is an amazing tool for education, business and social networking. Corporations can use Web 2.0 to make consumers feel like participants and get on a more personal level with consumers which is a win-win for both. I do think Web 2.0 will have to make some changes when it comes to certain issues such as copyright, authorship, privacy and identity. I also anticipate issues with reliability and validity of information becoming a problem in the future with an increase in the number of users. But I do believe Web 2.0 will continue to evolve and become an ultimate success.
Post a Comment