The Best of Web 2.0 228
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.'"
Worst Piece of Jargon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Worst Piece of Jargon (Score:2)
Re:Worst Piece of Jargon (Score:2, Funny)
Pfft. That's nothing compared to my kernel:
If you're wondering, I misused Debian's make-kpkg, and I haven't bothered to find out what I *should* have done, but it works for me.
Mod article -1 Marketing (Score:2, Interesting)
It's fairly obvious that "Web 2.0" and "blogosphere" and the like are marketing terms. The real questions are: What marketers are coming up with these things, and who's paying them to do it? I'm thinking it's The Carlyle Group, or the Bilderbergers, or the Knights Templar.
Re:Mod article -1 Marketing (Score:2)
It would actually be pretty easy (and objective) to determine when these features were first implemented in browsers. The Web really isn't an abstract thing, it's just a set of software applications and data. I think the idea of versioning is somewhat correct, in that the vast majority of the Web today is not what Tim Barners-Lee invented in 1992. HTTP (
Re:Mod article -1 Marketing (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Worst Piece of Jargon (Score:5, Funny)
Semantic Web questions (Score:3, Insightful)
*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.
Re:*tweet*, flag on the play. (Score:2)
Clippy sez: "Did you mean officio.us [officio.us]?"
Re:*tweet*, flag on the play. (Score:2)
domain propagation is pretty fast these days.
Re:*tweet*, flag on the play. (Score:2)
>
> Clippy sez: "Did you mean officio.us [officio.us]?"
Yeah, but now that you mention it, Clippy, I'd like to:
Re:*tweet*, flag on the play. (Score:2)
Re:*tweet*, flag on the play. (Score:2)
Screw the "good domainname" squatters - we'll create our own brand.
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.
Re:Verdict from the W3C (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Verdict from the W3C (Score:3, Insightful)
Both of these things make it difficult to ensure that every single (X)HTML element on your website will validate after it's been running for a while...and when you do discover bugs that break the standard it's a pain to change everything.
Take for example Slashdot, your comment, inclusive of HTML, is going to be stored in a TEXT or BLOB field and Perl filters are applied to
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.
Re:This list can't be accepted... (Score:2)
Re:This list can't be accepted... (Score:2)
Re:This list can't be accepted... (Score:2)
I'd be more interested.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Stuff like AJAX,
Re:I'd be more interested.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I'd be more interested.. (Score:2)
Re:I'd be more interested.. (Score:2)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:People use these? (Score:3, Insightful)
And just because YOU aren't interested in things like Flickr, nobody else can or should be either?
Re:People use these? (Score:2)
So, if you are actually living outside of the USA, the UK or Japan all you get are toy sites with usually clunky interfaces. Go Web 2.0. Rah rah rah.
Re:People use these? (Score:2)
There are people outside of the US, UK and Japan? I thought that was the mutant zone.
(I'm JOKING, PEOPLE! I've been to the mutant zone, the people seem normal enough. And Absinthe is legal. They use it to keep the mutations in check.)
Yahoo! / Michellin (Score:2)
This isn't about proving you wrong, but it could come in handy. From what I can tell it has fairly detailed city maps at least to Austria
Re:People use these? (Score:2)
See, there's people out there who would *never* deprive us of 21 blurry polaroids of their pickup truck from wobbly angles. There are whole blogs dedicated to stuff like this; I've seen them.
Re:People use these? QWZX (Score:2)
Re:People use these? QWZX (Score:2)
Re:People use these? QWZX (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:People use these? QWZX (Score:3, Insightful)
This article isn't about innovation. It's about buzzword fanaticism and marketers having wet dreams over The Next Big Thing without realizing that those techniques have been around for years.
Re:People use these? QWZX (Score:2)
AJAXify (Score:5, Insightful)
Digg... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Digg... (Score:2)
Re:Digg... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even the community around it is very web 2.0 -- it encourages participation from all, no matter how unskilled or ignorant of the subject at hand~
Come to think of it, I think Web 2.0 is a metaphor for the modern world :(
Web 2.0? (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Web 2.0? (Score:2)
VRML (Score:2)
Re:Web 2.0? (Score:2)
Not that there is anythng happening now that wasn't happening 10 years ago...
Re:Web 2.0? (Score:3)
Re:Web 2.0? (Score:2)
Check the Web 2.0 DNA [techcrunch.com] stuff. There's a lot of hype, but some real advances in there as well. two-point-oh is cringe-worthy, but we need some way to label all this newish stuff.
Re:Web 2.0? (Score:2)
Re:Web 2.0? (Score:2)
Re:Web 2.0? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:2)
I'm not entirely sure if you're suggesting this is because of the IE engine. It's worth mentioning you can of course integrate the Mozilla engine into your Windows applications just as easily using this Mozilla ActiveX Control [www.iol.ie]. It uses the same API's as the various IE controls. (Oddly, whenever this control is mentioned alot of
This is the best? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is the best? (Score:2)
That's pretty much it - a cliquey circlejerk of cross promoting posers, whose blogs read like something out of the Titanic, "while they retreat to the smoking room and congratulate each other on being masters of the universe".
Web 2.0 label technology-centric, not user-centric (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Web 2.0 label technology-centric, not user-cent (Score:2)
In fact, I have never even heard of "vimeo" before but see youtube-links popping up left and right...
Web 2.0? (Score:2)
Web 2.0 is history (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh? (Score:2)
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)
Wake me up when Client/SOA hits (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wake me up when Client/SOA hits (Score:2)
Re:Wake me up when Client/SOA hits (Score:2)
Re:Wake me up when Client/SOA hits (Score:2)
Re:Wake me up when Client/SOA hits (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, now the question becomes: if you're building a desktop-like application for the web, why do you even WANT back and forward buttons to function? Does anybody ever complain that Outlook or Evolution don't have back and forward buttons to go back
30 Boxes (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:30 Boxes (Score:3, Interesting)
There were some of these "2.0" applications I hadn't t
All you need to know about Web 2.0... (Score:5, Informative)
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, ver
Best of list? (Score:2)
http://www.parm.net/web2.0/ [parm.net]
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Web v2.0 is good for your Bankaccount v2.0 (Score:2, Funny)
Best of 2006? It's only February! (Score:2)
Best of Pastel-Shaded Web Pages (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Over
Re:Web 2.0 technology? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Web 2.0 technology? (Score:2)
The response was a website with buzzwords and nothing more. I heard its the new thing today in software development. Just throw buzzwords and let the salesman tell the user what your product actually does.
I dunno.
Its silly and I agree. At least the hype with ruby on rails, or some other new thing is that its an actual product. Not a vague concept blown out of proportions. A site is just a site as far as
you miss the point (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends (Score:2, Insightful)
Depends which side of the funding you're on.
Re:That's great! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:That's great! (Score:2)
(For the love of god, will you let us use a few goddamn entities Taco? & deg; would be nice, you know...)
Re:That's great! (Score:2)
Re:That's great! (Score:2)
Re:That's great! (Score:2)
Joking aside, a pic search engine that can automatically categorize the image from the actual image contents would be a Really Big Thing, especially if you could just upload a pic and say "pics like this".
Re:That's great! (Score:2)
Re:That's great! (Score:2)
Re:That's great! (Score:2)
Here's a degree symbol in Unicode: [] Oh, wait, Slashdot won't display it. It shows up fine in the text area...
Next suggestion?
Re:That's great! (Score:2, Insightful)
That's what entities are for, silly.
Re:That's great! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:That's great! (Score:2)
Re:That's great! (Score:2)
Large databases of porn.
Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them
User-submitted porn.
Trusting users as co-developers
User-created porn.
Harnessing collective intelligence
"Adult" dating services.
Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
Animated flesh light ads.
Software above the level of a single device
"Live" porn cams with chat features.
Lightweight user interfaces, development models,
Re:2.0 (Score:2, Insightful)
That's absurd. So, who cares about progress? Screw HDTV then, it's just fancy TV. Forget about Java, it's just fancy C++. The internet is just fancy radio.
Like the terminology or not, "Web 2.0" is progress. Progress is good. God bless America, and so on.
Re:2.0 (Score:2, Insightful)
"what will be kinder to my servers? Sending this user the entire page again, or just sending that little bit at the bottom that needs to be updated? hmmmm...."
ajax stands to save people quite a bit of money in bandwidth fees and processor time.
A Map to Web 2.0 (Score:2)
There's a Web 2.0 Innovation Map [fourio.com] so you can see where some of these Web 2.0 companies are. And then there's the compendium of Web 2.0 logos and links [diggwatchblog.com], which spills over into Web 2.0 logos and links part 2 [diggwatchblog.com](.0?)
Re:What exactly is web 2.0? (Score:2)
It's important to note I find the term extremely stupid.
What?!? No BDaubler? (Score:2)
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.'"
I was SO looking forward to being able to go to a website, bedauble into the microphone, and have a Musical/MIDI score come out exactly as I *intended* it to be. *And* to have it posted on ebay for sale, and see 10% of the proceeds come back.
Man... and I even installed a microphone in the shower, just waitin' for those Web 2.