Note for reader: Content relates to http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
I want to say off the bat, that I come at this area as a bit of a skeptic about this web 2.0. Whilst I am on facebook http://www.facebook.com/cameron.stewart and use twitter http://twitter.com/cameronstewart, to me these simply fall into a publishing category.
The fact that others use the same tool to do the same is good for the tool, but doesn't necessarily provide proof of Web 2.0 concept.
I am glad this course at least teaches us something about web 1.0 (by way of a foundation). I would think that is is not to long before that distinction disappears between people that have never not known web 2.0 and those that witnessed the transition.
But perhaps I should keep on reading the article...
On the point about "If Netscape was the standard bearer for Web 1.0, Google is most certainly the standard bearer for Web 2.0" this article mentions nothing of Microsoft's role in the knocking off Netscape with Internet Explorer.
I like this point "At bottom, Google requires a competency that Netscape never needed: database management." This might get me more interested in the ISYS2065 subject -> relational database design. Who know's, I might even work for Google one day.
**End Page 1**
The mentioning of ebay jogged my memory to an issue that came up in our IKE2 class night about ebay and government demanding access to their companies internal data and the privacy implications privacy http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/ebay-the-trading-post-under-australian-tax-office-scrutiny/story-e6frfh4f-1225898309620
**End Page 2**
Skimmed past page 4 - nothing really interested me there. Should have it?
**End Page 4**
Glad the article mentioned Writely, the precurser to Google Docs (http://docs.google.com)
The document concludes with these key attributes of Web 2.0
I want to say off the bat, that I come at this area as a bit of a skeptic about this web 2.0. Whilst I am on facebook http://www.facebook.com/cameron.stewart and use twitter http://twitter.com/cameronstewart, to me these simply fall into a publishing category.
| Web 1.0 | Web 2.0 |
|---|
| publishing | --> | participation |
The fact that others use the same tool to do the same is good for the tool, but doesn't necessarily provide proof of Web 2.0 concept.
I am glad this course at least teaches us something about web 1.0 (by way of a foundation). I would think that is is not to long before that distinction disappears between people that have never not known web 2.0 and those that witnessed the transition.
But perhaps I should keep on reading the article...
On the point about "If Netscape was the standard bearer for Web 1.0, Google is most certainly the standard bearer for Web 2.0" this article mentions nothing of Microsoft's role in the knocking off Netscape with Internet Explorer.
I like this point "At bottom, Google requires a competency that Netscape never needed: database management." This might get me more interested in the ISYS2065 subject -> relational database design. Who know's, I might even work for Google one day.
**End Page 1**
The mentioning of ebay jogged my memory to an issue that came up in our IKE2 class night about ebay and government demanding access to their companies internal data and the privacy implications privacy http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/ebay-the-trading-post-under-australian-tax-office-scrutiny/story-e6frfh4f-1225898309620
**End Page 2**
- Blogging and the Wisdom of Crowds - "At its most basic, a blog is just a personal home page in diary format." IMHO the date/chronological aspect is of diminishing importance.
- RSS - This blog post that led me to starting to use RSS was http://www.pronetadvertising.com/articles/the-big-orange-button.html <- Helpful
Skimmed past page 4 - nothing really interested me there. Should have it?
**End Page 4**
Glad the article mentioned Writely, the precurser to Google Docs (http://docs.google.com)
A Web 2.0 word processor would support wiki-style collaborative editing, not just standalone documents. But it would also support the rich formatting we've come to expect in PC-based word processors. Writely is a good example of such an application, although it hasn't yet gained wide traction.Love this, since using these, never lost any work. Does the backup for you, can have multi-authors easily.
The document concludes with these key attributes of Web 2.0
- Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability
- Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them
- Trusting users as co-developers
- Harnessing collective intelligence
- Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
- Software above the level of a single device
- Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome, but please be nice :)