Comments for Really Simple Web 2.0

Really Simple Web 2.0

2005-09-27T20:55:27Z

Mike Arrington thinks Tim O'Reilly's Web 2.0 meme map should be simpler and Dave Winer responds, saying it's a complicated self-serving meme and pointing out that the map doesn't include RSS. I've been looking at the meme map closely, while working on the latest chapter of Josh's and my O'Reilly book on Web 2.0 (so yes, I'm somewhat biased in responding to Dave's post). I agree with Mike that we need to distil the meme map down into less complicated language. Concepts such as "Architecture of Participation" and "cost-effective scalability" carry with them a lot of meaning, but they're not easily grasped. So I need to find a simpler way to explain them in the book.

The way I am approaching this dilemma is to use case studies and real life examples whenever possible in the book. So for example when I discussed the Architecture of Participation, I described it in part as "the value of user contributions to a Web 2.0 application - based on the ability for users to easily participate in a system" and I used Amazon book reviews and eBay auctions as examples.

As Dave said, "it's hard work to make things really simple" and I'm certainly finding that to be the case in writing a book about Web 2.0. That's probably true for any non-fiction book though - the writer gets to the heart of the matter by relating things to real life and describing the simple things well. That's why I love Tom Wolfe's and Michael Lewis' books so much.

Finally, Dave ends his post today with this: "Web 2.0 is really simple, it's RSS 2.0." Well I have to disagree with that :-) RSS is a very important enabling technology of Web 2.0, definitely. But Web 2.0 is much more than RSS. It's about people using the Web as a platform to build on. RSS is one of the tools we use to do that, but there are others - APIs, AJAX, REST, XHTML/CSS, etc.

Actually when it comes down to it, Web 2.0 is really about normal everyday people using the Web and creating things on it - forget the acronyms.

UPDATE: Susan Mernit said it way better than me: "The enduring lesson of all of the social media and emerging technologies is that we've created an a la carte, do it yourself platform where users can engage with sophisticated forms of search, feeds, metadata and APIs, social networks and identity, and commerce and fill these vessels with their own information
--And that's the heart of the revolution, IMHO."

Comment from Ken on 2005-09-27

2005-09-27T21:45:18Z

I agree. Even though perhaps I've created some more jargon, that is the aim of my first "blogoposium", starting tomorrow and running through the end of the week. Bloggers around the web will be discussing how best to communicate the ideas behind Web 2.0 (and then tagging their posts to "blogoposium1"). Web 2.0 is not about memes, maps, or jargons, it is as you put Richard, "normal everyday people using the Web and creating things on it."

Hope to see everyone there.

Comment from Pete Freitag on 2005-09-27

2005-09-27T21:51:04Z

Macromedia has been using the term RIA's or rich internet applications for about 3 years to describe something like AJAX, but with flash instaed of JavaScript (the Asynchronous and XML parts still exist). Why is this always missing from discussions of Web 2.0?

Comment from leonard on 2005-09-27

2005-09-27T22:23:53Z

Flash gets left out partially out of sheer bias, but also for some really good reasons. It's not 'open' to the end-user/developer, there's just no way to tweak or remix. It's also missing things like an easily accessible document structure (it's even difficult for textual analysis) and while some of the format has been reverse engineered, there are no real alternative client-server stack available. These characteristics are actually often pushed as positives (and maybe they are in some contexts), but are decidedly not 'Web 2.0.' Put another way, one could say Flash isn't discussed in Web 2.0 terms because Macromedia doesn't want it to be.

Comment from John Hagel on 2005-09-27

2005-09-28T04:57:36Z

Richard - I took a stab at trying to distill the essence of the Web 2.0 concept in terms that would (hopefully) have meaning to non-techies. It's available on my blog at http://edgeperspectives.typepad.com/edge_perspectives/2005/09/what_is_web_20.html
Any comments or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Comment from Dave Winer on 2005-09-28

2005-09-28T11:41:38Z

Maybe this is what you're searching for...

http://www.thetwowayweb.com/about

Comment from John Dowdell on 2005-09-28

2005-09-28T15:10:31Z

"there's just no way to tweak or remix."

There's no way to tweak or remix your visitor's browser codebase either. But you *can* affect the instructions given that client, whether the client is Macromedia Flash Player or a range of document browsers.

Both of these are separate from tweaking or remixing the data streams which either client is instructed to request and display.

Three levels: tweaking the visitor's native-code engine; instructing that engine how to behave; and then the data upon which they work.

"one could say Flash isn't discussed in Web 2.0 terms because Macromedia doesn't want it to be." I'm still trying to figure out what everyone agrees that catchy little label signifies, myself.... ;-)

jd/mm

Comment from Otis Gospodnetic on 2005-09-28

2005-09-28T16:29:08Z

You are right about RSS. It's just another enabling technology, just like AJAX. Furthermore, saying "RSS" is wrong, as it's really about _feeds_, not a particular feed format such as RSS or Atom.

Flash is not getting noticed because it's not new, and people associate it with slow-loading web pages. AJAX is old as well, but it's a recent discovery. Furthermore, AJAX is sexy, geeks love it, and we know how media and other followers buy that. The result is an endless number of echos of AJAX AJAX AJAX... in the blogosphere and traditional media.

I don't find this meme map too complicated, but I do think that a nice 5-10 minute audio snippet would make a good companion for all those who didn't hear Tim's talks at various conferences.