Mark S. Hicks

     What is web 2.0 the name implies a new and improved web, a new beginning, more advanced technology. What web 2.0 is more than anything else is a state of mind rather than an update to any technical specifications, but changes in the way software developers and end-users use webs over the original web 1.0. Web 2.0 is touted as the business revolution in the computer industry by the move to the Internet as a platform . What is new and improved is how the user perceives his or her web interaction, experience and expectations. With the web 2.0 mentality, as users ask questions they expect immediate feedback and dialog.

     Larry Becker, vice president of marketing and business development at Rimm-Kaufman Group (RKG) asks can the web 2.0 new tools shake things up on ones site, but will they help you sell more stuff? Becker challenges us to take a closer look at what we are selling and who our customers are before we engage them in social tagging. If putting the user in charge of the website content and offerings is not germane to the business plan of selling more products we are not only wasting time but resources. Becker continues to say “ make sure your site has mastered the fundamentals” Becker advocates clean design and less clutter, then as one engages new tools such as tagging, and interactive content it will build on the solid design already in place. Becker also encourages us to seek the advice of the experts like online marketers.

     This new Web 2.0 terminology has attracted opposition and notable skepticism from technology experts such as Tim Berners-Lee the Director of the World Wide Web Consortium and the original inventor of the World Wide Web in1989 while working at the European Particle Physics Laboratory, CERN . Berners-Lee questions “whether one can use the term in a meaningful way, since many of the technology components of "Web 2.0" have existed since the early days of the Web”

     Web 2.0 offers social elements with the embracement of the, my-web attitude. Users generate and distribute content, customize their user environments, share files, music, and applications with other users. Users can run software applications entirely through a browser. Bart Decrem , a founder and former CEO of Flock , calls Web 2.0 the "Participatory Web" and regards legacy Web as information-source or Web 1.0.

     Some impacts that Web 2.0 have on the creation of websites are that users can own the data on a site with content control over that data. Tim O'Reilly the founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media, Inc., states that these sites may have “Architecture of Participation” that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it. He continues to say that this stands in sharp contrast to traditional websites which limit visitors to viewing and whose content can only be modified by the site's owner.

     Web 2.0 sites often feature rich, user-friendly interactive interfaces based on Asynchronous JavaScript and XML “AJAX,” Adobe “ Flex ” or similar rich media. And with the perceived second generation of webology come new and refreshed buzz acronyms like , “ wikis ” collaborative web software, “ folksonomies ” user-driven Content organizing “ JSON” JavaScript Object Notation, “masups” multi source web applications, “RSS” really simple syndication for auto feeding updated content like news stories, and “CSS” Cascading Style Sheets for user defined colors , fonts , and  layouts, to name just a few. All these new or renewed web infrastructures are focused on the web 2.0 social-networking aspect concepts.

     So again how do these new concepts, tools, and fresh focus for our web future sculpt the way we build our websites? Do we allow our intended goals to be redefined by the users; how far do we go. Isn’t the overall scheme of things is to engage our customers in order to get them to buy what we are selling? Can these things allegedly result in a rise in the economic value of the web as users have control to do more online?

     We apply Romance and Hollywood effect to web 2.0 to the point that it can be all things to everyone a system with out flaw with instant answers and gratification. We can fill it with flash and cool special effects and sensationalize its star qualities as we jump it across immeasurable caverns, loft nuclear weapons at it and pent it against all challengers as it emerges without a hair out of place. But at the end of the day we have taken the world’s potentially most powerful tool and turned it into a video game. Games are not real nor are super heroes. Content and functionality is king we must not lose site of this. Flash, fun, and entertaining interaction is wonderful but we must not lose the usefulness of the web, long live the king.

References

Becker, Larry, Rimm-Kaufman Group (Keeping your eye on the 2.0 user) January 2007 Multichannel Merchant, Copyright 2007 Prism business media http://www.multichannelmerchant.com

Berners-Lee, Tim W3C ( The Future of The web ) http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/

Decrem, Bart , CEO of Flock (Participation Revolution) ©2007 The Conversations Network http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail778.html

O'Reilly, Tim O'Reilly Media, Inc., (The Architecture of Participation) June (2004) © 2007, O'Reilly Media, Inc http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/articles/architecture_of_participation.html

Wikipedia, (Social Bookmarking) last modified 05:02, 9 December (2007) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_bookmarking Wikipedia® Foundation, Inc