Module 3 - Web 2.0

What applications or “services” do you think are Web 2.0 indicative?

Web 2.0, to me, can most simply be explained as the Web evolving.

During the mid 1980’s when I first started to use a computer, to start a program I had to know the exact command to type at the C:/ prompt, the screen was black with white text, you hoped that what was visible on the screen was what was going to be printed out, to enhance the type or cut and paste you needed to remember key combinations ctrl b or ctrl c. This evolved in the early 1990’s to the WYSIWYG applications, where key combinations (although not replaced) became easier with buttons on a tool bar at the top of screen and you could almost guarantee that what was on the screen was what printed out. Key combinations and buttons have evolved even further with a click of the right mouse button. Programs have become/evolved to be easier and more user friendly.

The Web, although on a different level to everyday word processors, spreadsheets and databases, has also evolved to become more user friendly. When the Web became available to the public in the earlier 1990’s the only people able to utilise it fully or put information on it were the scientifically and intellectually gifted. Now, as Richard McManus is quoted as saying, “Web 2.0 is really about normal everyday people using the web and creating things on it” and in the same weblog, Barb Dybwad quotes Susan Mernit as saying “The heart of Web 2.0 is the user … the tools power it but the people do it”.

However I would also point out that like key combinations and DOS commands, Web 1.0 has not died into extinction, that Web 2.0 is merely a progression for the “everyday people” to do what was once the domain of a select few.

Applications and services such as weblogs, Facebook, MySpace, Chat rooms are indicative of Web 2.0. This blog is indicative of Web 2.0, an everyday person using the tools available to communicate with other people and to have input on the World Wide Web.

The downfall/pay-off to this accessibility would have to be the reliability and quality of the information that is now appearing.

What’s the difference between Internet Communications Blinklist and a website/HTML written list? What are the benefits?

The major difference between the Internet Communications Blinklist and the website/HTML written list is the appearance and efficiency.

Although I think I favour the website/HTML written list, I was disappointed to see that a couple of the sites were listed more than once and that the list was not in any apparent order. Some of the sites gave a brief explanation/indication of their content, but on many there was no indication and it was necessary to go to the site to check it out.

Sites listed on the Blinklist, on the other hand, had a brief outline of the site and the search words listed for the search engines, it also gave an indication of the hits the site had. I liked the interactive component of being able to read comments that other people had made about the site and being able to leave a comment.

Which format would I like better and why?

I thought both lists had positive and negative points; however I would probably favour the website/HTML list. I prefer the basic, to-the-point format to the “frills” offered by the Blinklist.

I found the Blinklist a good place to procrastinate but still feel as if I was achieving something worthwhile. I found that I was easily distracted by the “my friends” list and the recent sites section, and I also spent a lot of time reading all of the comments made about a couple of the sites when one or two of the comments would have sufficed.