Comments

1. Comment by burt — June 29, 2006 @ 10:35 pm

   I've been pondering about the Web2.0 "look". Seems to me like it is almost going back a few years when we all used to use fades, shadows, reflections and so on for graphics.

   Only difference being that back then the vogue was for tiny text, whereas Web2.0 is all about big text and lots of white space.

   I like the look of pretty sites.

2. Comment by Dave — June 30, 2006 @ 1:05 am

   I like sites that look good as long as they are easy to navigate, etc.

   It is kind of like cars(not the movie), first cars were boxes, then very rounded, then back to boxes, then round and now it is boxes with beveled edges.

3. Comment by Alan — June 30, 2006 @ 8:46 am

   The gurus had to put a name on it so that someone could sell it. Simple as that.

   I really don't think a trend for similar "Web 2.0" style site designs and a little more use of Javascript really justifies a new web version number because, as you say, it's just the web evolving naturally.

4. Comment by Oli Allen — June 30, 2006 @ 10:40 am

   Just another design fad at the end of the day, like the animated gifs and flash intros of the past. However, unlike some design fads, it seems that people are throwing money at anything labeled "web 2.0", just as they did during the last "dot com boom" - and we all know how well that turned out… I guess you can't blame people for trying to cash in on it while they still can

5. Comment by Chance — June 30, 2006 @ 3:21 pm

   Somehow I ranted out 4 or 5 paragraphs on my blog about web 2.0, but I think what it came down to was "good web design is good web design" no matter what you call it.

6. Comment by Carine B — June 30, 2006 @ 8:15 pm

   sorry to have to disagree.
   Essentially web 2.0 is about the semantic web and the ability to get bits and pieces of webcontent from different sites, mix and match … and try to get at 1+1 = 3
   So it's API's for the web.

   Lots of web2.0 sites can be found here:
   http://www.emilychang.com/go/ehub/

   Personnally I think the look has come about because of the target of a lot of these sites are the computer literate, geeky or mac'ie crowd that love (web)design.
   They also have high resolution wide screens so that we all end of with slightly enlarged fonts so that it would look good in the board room when presenting the (beta) website to the angel investors.

   BTW, did you notice that Flicker is gamma testing now ?

7. Comment by Oli Allen — July 1, 2006 @ 10:20 am

   Carine B: Your comment reminded me of another thing that seems to define "Web 2.0" - buzzwords

8. Comment by sarahG — July 1, 2006 @ 12:19 pm

   First there was HTML and CGI, then JavaScript and Java came along.Flash, CSS then PHP and ASP came soon after (I'm talking about popularity as opposed to when they were developed)

   Yet along came AJAX and Ruby and suddenly we have Web 2.0. To me there have been at least 3 or 4 milestone marks to Web Development since my use started in '95, and I'm sure a few more before that. Surely it should be Web 5.0 or something higher if anything at all?

   It's a buzz word to try and encapsulate another milestone, shame it makes it seem that what's happening now is worthy of it and nothing before it has been.

9. Comment by Dave — July 1, 2006 @ 3:01 pm

   For me, Sarah's comments sum it all up quite nicely. "Web 2.0" branding seems superfluous as far as most of us are concerned.

   Thanks for the feedback,
   Dave

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Did you enjoy reading this?
Please consider subscribing to our RSS Feed!

Subscribe by Email
Get notified by email every time we update this Blog!