Slashdot Log In
The Best of Web 2.0
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Feb 24, 2006 06:46 PM
from the so-shiny-and-useable dept.
from the so-shiny-and-useable dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived.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.
Worst Piece of Jargon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Worst Piece of Jargon (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.open-rsc.org/)
Great (Score:1)
(http://history-guy.blogspot.com/)
That's great! (Score:1)
(http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~brandoni)
*tweet*, flag on the play. (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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
PhotosFlickr.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
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.
FlickEr.com (Score:1)
This list can't be accepted... (Score:4, Funny)
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)
(http://www.mrconsult...logs/consultinglife/)
Stuff like AJAX,
People use these? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:People use these? QWZX (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday July 01, @08:03AM)
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)
The complete list (Score:1, Informative)
The list:
* Flickr [flickr.com] * Vimeo [vimeo.com] * Del.icio.us [del.icio.us] * Digg [digg.com] * Bloglines [bloglines.com] * Netvibes [netvibes.com] * Writeboard [writeboard.com] * Google Maps [google.com] * Google Local [google.com] * Meebo [meebo.com]
--
Superb hosting [tinyurl.com] 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95
What exactly is web 2.0? (Score:1)
(http://google.com/)
It is interesting however to consider that "To some extent Web 2.0 has become a buzzword, incorporating whatever is newly popular on the Web" -From wikipedia's definition [wikipedia.org]
Digg... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://godgab.org/)
Web 2.0? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday November 03, @04:58AM)
"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.
Re:Web 2.0? (Score:4, Funny)
- Grandpa Simpson
Re:Web 2.0? (Score:4, Funny)
Next week: Web 3.0, it's when you can actually download all of the active content onto local storage and run it while disconnected as something they call "An Application". Wild.
This is the best? (Score:3, Interesting)
Web 2.0 technology? (Score:1, Redundant)
I think I am going to shoot the next person who says "Web 2.0."
-matthew
Balthasar (Score:1)
sheesh (Score:1, Interesting)
2.0 (Score:1)
Do I care if
- requests are made in the background (aka ajax)
- the page posts back and re-renders (non ajax)
No, no I don't. I'm yet to see a single ajax feature I couldn't live without.
Web 2.0 label technology-centric, not user-centric (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro/)
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.
"Web 2.0 technology"? What's that? (Score:1)
Please, someone give the marketing people sedatives before they hurt themselves.
Every time I hear one of these clueless clowns talk about "new technology", it just reminds me of how shallow their historical perspective is. I'm not sure what's worse -- listening to these idiots or watching them get funding for what is nothing more than a pretty website with a bit of Javascript masquerading as The Next Big Thing(tm). And of course, this will all be the rage until next month, when we throw everything away for The Next Big Thing 2.0(tm).
Of course, we all know it's not about technology -- it's about publishing articles, books and white papers, holding symposia, forums, trade shows and meetings where we can all pay to hear someone pontificate about The Next Big Thing(tm). Let's not forget all of the advertising real estate made available by all those magazines, books, symposia, forums, trade shows and meetings.
Heaven help you if you even quietly ask exactly what all of this does for the customer, or why it is that their Next Big Thing(tm) cratered after a year and $25 million.
No, I'm not a curmudgeon. I just sound like one.
Web 2.0? (Score:2)
(http://nerv.eu.org/)
Web 2.0 is history (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh? (Score:2)
(http://www.usermode.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday September 04 2005, @07:28PM)
What is there in this "technology" that is in any way significant? Or is it just a bunch of stale hype?
Vimeo (Score:2, Funny)
Upset about petrol [vimeo.com]
cant read the article (Score:2, Funny)
(http://www.shopcheap.com/)
Wake me up when Client/SOA hits (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery | Last Journal: Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:20PM)
30 Boxes (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://douglas.min.net/essay/)
web 2.0 is way behind aol right now (Score:1)
(http://www.shopcheap.com/)
Damn them aolers they must be driving flying cars and have robotic servents right now.
All you need to know about Web 2.0... (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Saturday January 13 2007, @02:19AM)
writeboard - bleh, check out writely.com (Score:2)
Supports importing word and openoffice documents and can output to the web, word and others. Has tags like gmail instead of folders and will supposedly output pdf in the final version.
They do need better management of documents - once you get more than 20 documents going it gets a little unruly, but again, very usable.
I have just returned from the future... (Score:1)
Best of list? (Score:2)
(http://www.thegamernation.com/Forums)
http://www.parm.net/web2.0/ [parm.net]
solution too often in search of a problem (Score:1, Interesting)
yes, there are applications for this stuff, but a few applications here and there isn't enough. this solution has to try and solve every problem.
hence, the people in the know are pretty well unimpressed.
btw, i want to learn ajax so i can stop building multi-dimensional arrays to support my linked select boxes. in that case, this solution looks *really* nice. but a linked select isn't used that often.
then ya have to worry about public sites b/c so many people have js turned off.
some cool stuff, but not earth shattering.
wankr (Score:1)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Why is StumbleUpon ignored by these surveys? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.webcommons.biz/)
Web v2.0 is good for your Bankaccount v2.0 (Score:2, Funny)
(http://www.funkeye.com/jpg2asc/)
Best of 2006? It's only February! (Score:2)
(http://www.putfwd.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 23 2004, @01:50AM)
Best of Pastel-Shaded Web Pages (Score:3, Funny)
(Last Journal: Sunday July 13 2003, @10:38AM)
Bloglines? (Score:1)
(http://www.iki.fi/wwwwolf/)
What's so "Web 2.0" about Bloglines? It's a plain old CGI stuff with some JavaScript thrown on the interface.
Well, if it does have XMLHttpRequest stuff there somewhere, I have to indeed give it a little bit of credit - it's then one of the few "Web 2.0" websites I've tried that don't have small but weird user interface issues and works in the tried and true and logical way.
Except that bug a while ago when the whole thing turned Japanese while I wasn't looking.
Different ideas (Score:2)
Now, then. I don't think that the most interesting thing about this 'new wave', whatever you call it, is that font sizes are up 140% since last year or that form submits are being sent asynchronously. No, the interesting thing is both in the details and in the big picture.
Overwhelmingly, it seems that most people are embracing the media now. They're not trying to shoehorn in their old models and whining about how the web sucks when it doesn't work (see "the bubble"). The people who are fueling this are web programmers (or designers) who know what works and what doesn't, and they build their stuff for themselves.
Gmail was originally built because of the suckiness of most other webmail providers. Basecamp, Writeboard and Campfire were all built to solve problems 37signals had internally. And with everyone building *mainly* for themselves, of course you're not going to like everything.
The second thing is in the details. An example is the killer app for XMLHttpRequest is autocompletion. You type "Bill" and it fills out "Gates, Cheif Architect". You type "Linus" and it fills out "Torvalds, BDFL". It's not essential by any means, but it's very, very nice in very, very many places.
What about inventions like tags then? Well, people are building for themselves. They don't want to deal with folder hierarchies, and the creation thereof. They just want to type "important wednesday" for their meeting and get on with their lives.
My assessment of the 'new wave' we're seeing here boils down to what I wrote above. It's not about 'mashups', it's not about 'blogs', it's not about 70 point Arial, it's not about pastels. It's much more about interesting people coming to terms with what they actually can do with technology to solve their own problems.
I nominate BoardTracker (Score:1)
http://www.boardtracker.com [boardtracker.com]
It has a little ajax sprinkled around along with a few other web 2.0 "features" and overall (and perhaps even despite that) its a pretty useful site. Its rather cool IMHWeb2.O ;)
As for those on that list I'd say bloglines is the killer app.. I couldn't get by without that these days.. so many rss feeds, so little time! The rest I could and in fact do live without.
collaborative editors (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Sunday May 21 2006, @04:58PM)
Moonedit and gobby are worth a look. They keep the files on your machine where they can be automatically backed up and if the software falls over you have access to sort it out yourself.
Wikipedia list of collaborative editors [wikipedia.org]
Nice article (Score:1)
(http://www.otavo.com/)
Otavo [otavo.com] (shameless plug) is set to launch this year, as are many others listed here [listible.com]
Netvibes? (Score:2)
Re:Stick Your Web 2.0 Jack Up Your... (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Friday February 17 2006, @02:00AM)
Because they know the mere mention of "Web 2.0" will piss off 90% of the readership, thus initiating a flame fest and plenty of page views.