Web 2.0 – Your Technology is in my Experience
Posted on | August 26, 2005 | 2 Comments
It’s interesting seeing the web 2.0 discussion bifurcate. The technologists seem to feel that “Web 2.0 is about making websites machine readable so that content can squirt seamlessly between unrelated sites. Technologies like RSS, RESTian APIs, and XHTML/CSS are the core of Web 2.0.”
The designers are waking up and saying, “No! It’s about the improved experience!”
Considering the technologists got there first, this is one of the reasons that, in the back of my mind, I’ve been nervous talking about “Web 2.0″ when I refer to the trends we’re seeing. My initial effort to label it something else (“designing for the sandbox“) understandably didn’t take root (it’s too opaque, and requires a concerted marketing effort).
It feels like the phrase “Web 2.0″ is definitely here to stay. And with it, the challenge for designers to make technologists understand that Web 2.0 isn’t interesting because it makes “the Internet useful for computers,” (as Jeff Bezos said), but it’s interesting because it further empowers *users*. This is the underlying theme to Josh Porter and Richard McManus’ recent “Web 2.0 for Designers” piece.
And I think a way for the technologists and designers to hold hands is to go a level deeper and realize their shared philosophies. In June I wrote an essay for the Adaptive Path site on relinquishing control (and giving users the power to dictate their experiences). A month later, DeWitt Clinton, a software developer, wrote, “Web 2.0 is giving up control.” He then gets jiggy with acronyms (REST, SOAP, API, etc.) but, truly, we’re talking about the same thing.
I’m looking forward to the upcoming Web 2.0 conference as an opportunity to explicitly bridge these worlds. The challenge then being, how do we spread the word?
Comments
2 Responses to “Web 2.0 – Your Technology is in my Experience”
Leave a Reply
Hello
Archives
- February 2012 (1)
- January 2012 (9)
- December 2011 (7)
- September 2011 (1)
- June 2011 (4)
- May 2011 (8)
- April 2011 (5)
- March 2011 (1)
- February 2011 (2)
- January 2011 (3)
- December 2010 (4)
- October 2010 (2)
- September 2010 (1)
- July 2010 (1)
- June 2010 (2)
- May 2010 (7)
- April 2010 (4)
- March 2010 (4)
- February 2010 (16)
- January 2010 (35)
- December 2009 (4)
- October 2009 (1)
- September 2009 (4)
- August 2009 (4)
- July 2009 (7)
- June 2009 (7)
- May 2009 (3)
- April 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (5)
- February 2009 (6)
- January 2009 (7)
- December 2008 (5)
- November 2008 (7)
- October 2008 (5)
- September 2008 (8)
- August 2008 (5)
- July 2008 (15)
- June 2008 (8)
- May 2008 (7)
- April 2008 (4)
- March 2008 (14)
- February 2008 (6)
- January 2008 (8)
- December 2007 (14)
- November 2007 (3)
- October 2007 (9)
- September 2007 (6)
- August 2007 (8)
- July 2007 (11)
- June 2007 (8)
- May 2007 (8)
- April 2007 (9)
- March 2007 (12)
- February 2007 (10)
- January 2007 (9)
- December 2006 (8)
- November 2006 (17)
- October 2006 (9)
- September 2006 (12)
- August 2006 (8)
- July 2006 (12)
- June 2006 (12)
- May 2006 (8)
- April 2006 (18)
- March 2006 (12)
- February 2006 (14)
- January 2006 (9)
- December 2005 (19)
- November 2005 (10)
- October 2005 (10)
- September 2005 (18)
- August 2005 (21)
- July 2005 (12)
- June 2005 (9)
- May 2005 (16)
- April 2005 (11)
- March 2005 (12)
- February 2005 (7)
- January 2005 (8)
- December 2004 (15)
- November 2004 (12)
- October 2004 (13)
- September 2004 (3)
- August 2004 (13)
- July 2004 (9)
- June 2004 (11)
- May 2004 (6)
- April 2004 (9)
- March 2004 (8)
- February 2004 (7)
- January 2004 (9)
- December 2003 (7)
- November 2003 (6)
- October 2003 (19)
- September 2003 (12)
- August 2003 (16)
- July 2003 (10)
- June 2003 (6)
- May 2003 (7)
- April 2003 (7)
- March 2003 (4)
August 27th, 2005 @ 9:19 pm
Hi Peter,
This is an extremely insightful post. I’ve been talking and thinking about the same basic concept but without the added knowledge you have about the technology and the experience side but in broader terms. Here’s what I would add to your post, taking it in the business and design context, the Internet has matured into an industrial platform for business es in it’s own right, i.e. you can now have a virtual business with revenue generation and no “brick and mortar” required. However, for those us who are neither the technologists nor a designer in this space (experiences, virtual and product interfaces) and of a certain age, we don’t understand the full revenue generation and experience/brand building potential of cyberspace (to paint it in broad strokes and generalizations). So for regular companies, who still require a virtual presence, either on our products or on our websites, the current revenue generation business models are based on derivations of what we know and love in strategy cases taught at b school – old school business models. I believe that the new platform has matured to the point that there are revenue generation touchpoints to not only build your brand but to build your business that are waiting to be discovered and then translated for companies that aren’t traditionally full of techies or designers, nor in the Bay Area. That is the next step forward and it’s based on exactly what you have said in your post. Thank you!
Niti
April 4th, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
This site is a lot of fun very well designed. online pharmacy tramadol