Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

The Best of Web 2.0

Posted by Zonk on Fri Feb 24, 2006 07:46 PM
from the so-shiny-and-useable dept.
Programming IT Technology
Fennie writes "Designtechnica has published their 2006 Best of Web 2.0 list. Some of the sites include Flickr.com, Vimeo.com and Writeboard.com. From the piece: 'The next generation of the web is here! With new kinds of desktop-like applications being released left and right, how will you know where to go and what to use? That's why we're here: To show you the best of Web 2.0 sites that you can get the most out of. No matter the task, video, audio, or photos, we have a site that works great for what you want to do and uses all the great features of Web 2.0 technology.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

The Best of Web 2.0 25 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Worst Piece of Jargon (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ARRRLovin (807926) on Friday February 24 2006, @07:49PM (#14797559)
    1) Web 2.0

  • *tweet*, flag on the play. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tackhead (54550) on Friday February 24 2006, @07:54PM (#14797583)
    > Designtechnica has published their 2006 Best of Web 2.0 list. Some of the sites include Flicker.com,

    Attention! Article submitter is guilty of W2C (Web 2.0 Consortium) standards violation. "Flickr", not "Flicker". If a domain doesn't end in ".us" and spell an English word, you must drop a vowel.

    We realize you correctly linked to flickr.com, and we're not trying to be offici.ous; we're just asking that you use a Web-2.0-compliant spelling-checkr.

    • Verdict from the W3C (Score:5, Interesting)

      by iamlucky13 (795185) on Friday February 24 2006, @10:37PM (#14798300)

      Ok, validation isn't everything, and passing the validator is not 100% confirmation that your page is valid, but just for kicks (and to see if the best of web 2.0 passes the basics of web 1.0), let's pass their list through the W3C's HTML Validator and see what we get (links go to the validator results

      Photos
      Flickr.com [w3.org] - HTML 4.01 Transitional - 15 errors.
      No need to use end tags if you don't use a start tag. Meta Keywords...does anyone still pay attention to those?

      Video
      vimeo.com [w3.org] - HTML 4.01 Transitional - 41 errors.
      Use your alt attributes and remember that td's should be nested inside tr's.

      Social Bookmarking
      Del.icio.us [w3.org] - XHTML 1.0 Strict - 21 errors.
      Actually a decent attempt. They went with a strict declaration and didn't use tables for layout.

      Digg [w3.org] - XHTML 1.0 Transitional - 3 errors
      Really close. Fix those links and and get rid of that "disabled" attribute. Where'd they find that one?

      Newreaders/RSS
      www.bloglines.com [w3.org] - XHTML 1.0 Transitional - 137 errors.
      Yikes. Yes I think the colspan attribute is cool, too, but not that cool. Give it a rest.

      Start Pages
      www.netvibes.com [w3.org] - XHTML 1.0 Strict - 13 errors
      They were doing so well with the strict declaration...but then that rotten cellpadding attribute snuck in...and width...and border.

      Collaboration/Word Processors
      www.writeboard.com [w3.org] - XHTML 1.0 Transitional - 12 errors
      Not bad. Time to advance to Strict, I think.

      Maps/Directions
      Google Maps [w3.org] - XHTML 1.0 Strict - 101 errors
      Google! How could you?!? Of all the sites to use deprecated elements under a Strict declaration! I feel betrayed.

      Local Directories
      Google Local [google.com] - Not Found The requested URL /local/ was not found on this server

      Chat/IM
      Meebo [w3.org] - DOCTYPE DECLARATION was not recognized or missing - 2 errors
      Come on. That's sooo 1990's. Actually, it gave me a declaration, so perhaps its malformed or they don't give one to robots.

      Buzzword Sites - What? Like I could let a name like Design Technica off that easy.
      Design Technica [w3.org] - This Page is not valid (no Doctype found)! - 38 errors
      Ouch! Same story. I see one in the source, but the validator doesn't accept it. Tables

      Hmmm...everybody tried xhtml except designtechnica and meebo. Targeting mobile browsers, I guess? Nobody passed. There were a few non-table-based layouts, but that was offset by a lot of use of deprecated elements. It looks like web 2.0 is about as ready as IE 7.

  • This list can't be accepted... (Score:4, Funny)

    by masklinn (823351) <slashdot@org.masklinn@net> on Friday February 24 2006, @07:56PM (#14797596)

    they forgot the True Incarnation of web 2.0 [parm.net], the embodyment of what "Web 2.0" means, the body and soul of the movement.

  • I'd be more interested.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mowie_X (600765) on Friday February 24 2006, @07:57PM (#14797598) Homepage
    ..in a best of developer technology list..
    Stuff like AJAX, .NET Fx, Rails that is really making developing for the web much more fun.

  • People use these? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AuMatar (183847) on Friday February 24 2006, @07:58PM (#14797603)
    Total number of these webpages I've ever used.... 1, Google Maps.
    Total number of these webpages that even remotely serve a need.... 2, Google Maps and maybe Google Local.

    And for directions, google is easily beaten by Rand-Mcnally. Only the satelite maps feature gives it a good use.

    So whats all the hype for? If I take a photo, I don't want it indexed to the world- I send it to the 2-3 people who might give a shit. Same with video. Back when I used IM (before all my friends stopped using it) I used Trillian to the same effect as they use Meebo, with awesome side features (chat logs). I sure as hell don't want my bookmarks searchable to the world.

    Looks more like a set of pop favorites for the under 20 crowd than it does actually useful sites.
    • Am I just paranoid? Why would I enter my IM account info to a beta web site I know nothing about, like meebo.com?

    • If I take a photo, I don't want it indexed to the world- I send it to the 2-3 people who might give a shit.

      And just because YOU aren't interested in things like Flickr, nobody else can or should be either?

      • If I had mod points, you'd get 'em. I've been skimming these comments, and it seems like one curmudgeon after another.

        You'd think Slashdot would be full of people interested in innovation, not the other way around, but it's all stuff like:

        "We had usenet, and we liked it! What's this RSS crap!

        "We could write personal diaries! Of course we had to hand-code the HTML, including all the links, and we couldn't do it from anywhere in the world just by loggin in from a web browser, we had to telnet onto the serv

        • Re:People use these? QWZX (Score:5, Insightful)

          by CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) on Friday February 24 2006, @09:02PM (#14797955) Journal
          You'd think Slashdot would be full of people interested in innovation, not the other way around

          For the most part people here are VERY interested in technological innovation. Problem is, "Web 2.0" is at least decade old technology. You'll find here people aren't too excited about marketing droids going on and on about faux innovation, however any real innovation is another story.

  • AJAXify (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MyNymWasTaken (879908) on Friday February 24 2006, @07:59PM (#14797606)
    Does a boring, old "Web 1.0" site become an Exciting, Hip, New & Improved Web 2.0 site just by using a little CSS & the XMLHttpRequest, er... sorry..., AJAX?

  • Digg... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eightyford (893696) on Friday February 24 2006, @08:06PM (#14797637) Homepage
    Just don't say Digg! It's like reading Slashdot with the filter set at -1. Only worse.

  • Web 2.0? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jd (1658) <imipakNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday February 24 2006, @08:06PM (#14797638) Homepage Journal
    I never use something that has a version number ending in .0! That's always the buggy release. Besides, I've yet to hear of a single "feature" of this purported 2.0 that wasn't being done with HyperCard and couldn't have been done on Ted Nielson's Xanadu (if anyone had developed it). I see no reason to dignify bugfixes with a change in the major version number.


    "But what about blogs?" What about them? People were writing diaries on USENET long before the CERN webserver ever came out. (Was CERN Web 0.0? And would NCSA or Apache be considered 1.0?) Cross-referencing and searches existed in Gopher and WAIS.


    "Dynamic HTML?" There were perl scripts for emedding msql queries (not MySQL - msql) into web pages long before anyone had imagined you'd be doing anything other than CGI and many years before HTML 3 came out. Indeed, if you want merely programmable web pages (not database-generated pages) then the mere existance of CGI is enough.


    "User-defined web pages" Oracle's "Powerbrowser" included a built-in web server which could serve a limited number of pages to external users. That was back in 1996, if I recall correctly.


    Let me know when something worthy of a "Web 2.0" comes out, and THEN I'll pay attention.

  • This is the best? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SJasperson (811166) on Friday February 24 2006, @08:14PM (#14797685)
    I've been forced to use Writeboard as part of our corporate Basecamp installation. It's got to be the least-functional wiki implementation out there, with very few formatting choices, almost no documentation, and slow response time. Oh, but wait, it comes from a sexy Web 2.0 company, so it must be good. There are better wikis (almost all of them), better AJAXified word processors (Writely), better collaborative tools that let you choose between wiki markup and WYSIWYG (JotSpot), so how did this dog get on the list? Perhaps the writers hang out at the same trendy coffeehouses chortling over their Web 2.0 antics...

  • Web 2.0 label technology-centric, not user-centric (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lazzaro (29860) on Friday February 24 2006, @08:42PM (#14797854) Homepage

    I was surprised to see YouTube didn't make the list -- it's the sort of unfiltered snapshot of the world you rarely see on the Internet anymore. It reminds me of 80's-era Usenet but for movies.

    Then I realized that sinces its movie delivery is Flash based, and its UI is AJAX-free, it probably doesn't qualify as "Web 2.0" in their book ...

    Which made me realize that it's really a technology centric label and not a user-centric one.

  • Wake me up when Client/SOA hits (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Baldrson (78598) * on Friday February 24 2006, @09:14PM (#14798014) Homepage Journal
    Harry Fuecks has an insightful article on the two kinds of AJAX [sitepoint.com] "HTML++" and "Client/SOA":
    HTML++

    AJAX is used to enhance existing HTML forms / user interaction but the fundamental paradigm is still the same as "normal" web applications. Some key smells of this style;

    1. Page reloads still happen frequently
    2. It's possible (if you make the effort) to degrade gracefully to non-supporting browsers / browsers with JS turned off.
    3. Session state still resides on the server.

    In practice this is what everyone's doing right now, with varying degrees of success.

    ...

    Client / SOA...

    Some of the key smells with Client / SOA;

    1. Page reloads are rare, if at all. The application tends to run in a single browser window.
    2. It's practically impossible to degrade gracefully, without maintaining seperate code bases.
    3. Session state is largely handled by the client.
    4. Javascript and the browser are acting as a runtime in the same sense as the Java or .NET runtime.
    5. It's going to require specialist developers
    I don't think Web 2.0 is going to get really interesting until Client/SOA hits.

  • 30 Boxes (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The Ape With No Name (213531) on Friday February 24 2006, @09:16PM (#14798017) Homepage
    http://30boxes.com/index.php [30boxes.com]

  • All you need to know about Web 2.0... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ingolfke (515826) on Friday February 24 2006, @09:24PM (#14798046) Journal
    can be found here [somethingawful.com]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.