I was recently described as being a "web 2.0er", which I found interesting. Certainly I am a blogger. Certainly I believe in mash-ups (though I'll be happier when I start seeing non-geographical mashups).
I don't, however, believe that we are returning to dumb terminals. This isn't how many others describe what is happening: they will talk about web-enabled applications and point to Writely, Backpack, Gmail, et cetera.
I also don't believe that what we are experiencing is a full version release. Instead it is a point release: maybe we are on Web 1.4? Business models haven't changed much from Web 1.3.
Web 2.0 as a social phenomenon
I hold these truths to be self-evident:
- Servers are designed to store data, distribute data, and manipulate data for many users. As such, they will be used to store, distribute, and manipulate data for many users.
- People like to write, read, share, play music, tell stories, and so forth. We have been doing this for several tens of thousands of years.
- The Internet was designed to allow people to write, read, share, tell stories, and so forth.
- A combination of improved ease of use and increased user familiarity has enabled people to start using the Internet (web) for its intended purpose.
What about the technology?
Technology is where I find Web 2.0 uninteresting, and sometimes an impediment. Yes, AJAX is wonderful, blah blah. But like any technology, it should be used to solve problems, not just look cool.
Web-based applications are great ... but local data is critical. This is especially true in the mobile space, where connectivity is so inconsistent. Further, with data on the server I am relying on somebody else to save data that I might find interesting in the future. With web applications I am relying on a company to continue to exist to save my information ... perhaps okay for Google, but who knows about some of the other companies? You know, the ones without a business plan?
Gratuitous AJAX introduces all sorts of risk to small-shop developers. The past couple of years has sent me back to the time of needing to check four different browsers for a particular site: lots of Javascript means lots of interaction with browser and document object models, which vary between rendering engines. It's also a somewhat risky business, opening my computer up to more hacks than I am comfortable with.
Tag clouds have been singularly unhelpful for any task I endeavored. Perhaps this is because I don't browse the news to find what other people find important; I look to find important information for me. Big tags are counterproductive to this goal, interfering with my visual search. So I use search engines instead.
This is not to say that tagging is useless. Tagging is quite useful, and should be done intelligently. I am impressed by groups who tell participants "tag any photos on Flickr with [insert agreed-upon group label]". Excellent stuff, and a wonderful way to achieve sharing in new ways.
Less useful is application or widget categorization using amateur-generated tags. Some applications end up in 12 different categories; others end up in only 1 (and not the one I'm looking at). And the sites sporting such schemes have not in my experience done anything to help: I can't check ALL of the tags I'd like to look at, so I have to look at each category individually. This normally requires me to look at the same items in several categories.
There is other stuff, but you start to get the idea.
The role of professionals
The web's ability to distribute amateur content is the most alluring thing about Web 2.0. This does not mean that the age of professionally-generated content is over. Nor does it mean that the age of professionally-designed sites is over.
Professionals have spent a lot of time learning their professions. They are good at what they do (usually, or at least they are better than most not trained). They add value. Amateurs also have a role, one recently empowered.
I strongly believe that design is an activity best done by professionals, with a lot of input from users. Amateur design frequently results in an application that works well for the people who design it, but not for others.
So: Am I a "Web 2.0er"?
Based on the description at Wikipedia of what Web 2.0 means:
“refers to a supposed second-generation of Internet-based services ??? such as social networking sites, wikis, communication tools, and folksonomies ??? that let people collaborate and share information online in previously unavailable ways”
This gives that Web 2.0 doesn’t require any new technology as such. That Ajax is much talked about together with Web 2.0 is simply a way to promote Ajax, as a supposed better way to achieve Web 2.0, but it’s certainly not mandatory, and could also be used for any other kind of interactive service.
Regarding “The role of professionals”: There’s one thing that differs a professional from an amateur: accountability. Even though we blame larger corporations for messing with the law, at least they can be legally accountable for what they write, record etc. When it comes to user-generated content there’s no real owner. The service provider doesn’t take the responsibility (they only published something somebody else created; similar to how ISPs don’t take the blame for piracy etc), the user is just expressing an opinion, etc.