ART121.news opART121.news op, DESIGN, March 2006 Computer Arts Issue 121 PDFs, CA121
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
//-->|NEWSOPINIONWeb 2.0: don’t believe the hypeIs Web 2.0 an over-hyped concept, or an innovation that will revolutionise how designers use the internet?Jason Arberhas the answer…The name Web 2.0 may suggestsomething fantastic and different, butI can think of a couple of other concepts thathave had a much bigger impact on the web.Take client-side scripting, such asJavaScript (or ECMAScript, to be pedantic).For all its cross-browser nightmares andhacks, JavaScript expanded the capabilitiesof the internet. But no-one suggested callingthe web Version 2.0 when Netscape firstrolled the capability into its browser.When Macromedia (now Adobe)Flashtook the web by storm, no-one said, “Hey,we’re through with this Version 1.0 web nowwe have animated vectors!” So is this latestwave of development really worthy of thename Web 2.0? I don’t think so.Is this the future?Proponents gush about web-based apps,better organised content with improvedcategorisation (read Tags) and the use of newtechnologies such as Ajax and Ruby on Railsin various combinations. Ajax is an acronymfor Asynchronous JavaScript and XML, anddescribes technologies working together toshift some of the processing of webapplications and forms from web servers tothe user’s computer. Ruby on Rails, on theother hand, is a server-side framework aimed22at increasing the server’s efficiency bydeveloping applications with less code.Many of these features have been mootedfor years, so if anything this movement is“Some of the technology andimagination used is extraordinary,but stills falls short of the seismicshift that a Web 2.0 label implies”more evolutionary than revolutionary. Let’sexamine some of the sites that are consideredas Web 2.0 to draw some conclusions. Take agander at Google Maps, Flickr, del.icio.us,and digg. Aside from being robustly builtusing the latest thinking in XHTML andCSS, the sites are cleanly designed with theemphasis on function rather than form.Perhaps most important is that they alloffer open APIs (application programminginterfaces), which is just a way of saying thatthe website data is easy to share. This hasresulted in the rise of mash-ups, or sites thatcombine information from different sources.Some of the technology and imaginationused is extraordinary, but still falls short ofthe seismic shift that a Web 2.0 label implies.Put simply, it’s hype, it’s a buzzword that canFORUMScomputerarts.co.ukto share your views onthis topic and morewith otherCAreadersbe bandied about, but Web 2.0 is no more thenext stage of the web than spinning globes orchanging the colour of hyperlinks were.But don’t dismiss Web 2.0. After all, it senta ripple of excitement through the webcommunity at a time when the internet wasbecoming accepted as almost ordinary. Nowit’s a place teeming with ideas again. RSSfeeds, podcasts, Wikis, the net is crawlingwith creative notions bootstrapping off eachother and into the wider world. That’s whypeople want Web 2.0 websites, because theywant a slice of the innovation, they want tobask in the warm glow of technologicaladvancement. It’s good for web developers,it’s good for web designers, and it’s good forthe web in general.Web 2.0 is like an in-joke that only the fewwith an understanding of the technology get.It’s a useful tool for the internet crusadersstomping the boredom and bad design out ofthe internet, and for lazy editors who can’t bebothered to sort the technological wheat fromthe over-hyped chaff. The only danger comeswhen those who should be laughing behindtheir hands start believing the hype, too.Jason Arber is a designer and co-founderof www.pixelsurgeon.com. Email him atjason@pixelsurgeon.com.|April 2006ART121.news_op Sec1:2228/2/06 5:19:51 pm [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ] |
Podobne
|