Slashdot Mirror
The Best of Web 2.0
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.'"
1) Web 2.0
-Randy
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.
they forgot the True Incarnation of web 2.0, the embodyment of what "Web 2.0" means, the body and soul of the movement.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
..in a best of developer technology list.. .NET Fx, Rails that is really making developing for the web much more fun.
Stuff like AJAX,
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.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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?
Just don't say Digg! It's like reading Slashdot with the filter set at -1. Only worse.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
"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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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...
Sigs? Sigs? We don't need no steenkin' sigs.
Web 2.0
It's not that those are bad ideas. Just not multi-million dollar ideas.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Dot Com Bubble 2.0
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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 server and type it in vimacs, but it was good enough for me, I don't see what the big deal is with all this blogging nonsense.
"Interactive HTML? Hah! The only thing that should interact is the Submit button! You hear that, Web 2.0? Submit to me like a good little program! Hyah! Hyah! Hya-- *cough* *hack* *wheeze*"
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.
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.
So what "version" was the web when Java applets became popular? What about frames? What about annoying midi background music? What about inline images?
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.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
you'd care if you were a webmaster for a large database-driven site.
"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.
sudo killall humans
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.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Web 3.0 is what the cool kids are doing now: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/web3point0
Slashdot would be full of people interested in innovation
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.
I'm still not sure what Web 2.0 is (other then some js,xml,ajax,etc..), but at least it lets me listen to a aussie chick complain about petrol and an id.
Upset about petrol
I got no time wife 2.0 is complaining 11.0 that we never watch tv 3.0 together, its snowing 12.0 here and i have to get up early tomorrow 14,321.0 to shovel car 9.0 out of the snow to goto job 7.0
Seastead this.
http://30boxes.com/index.php
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
can be found here
That's what entities are for, silly.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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 - 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 - 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 - XHTML 1.0 Strict - 21 errors.
Actually a decent attempt. They went with a strict declaration and didn't use tables for layout.
Digg - 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 - 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 - 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 - XHTML 1.0 Transitional - 12 errors
Not bad. Time to advance to Strict, I think.
Maps/Directions
Google Maps - 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 - Not Found The requested URL
Chat/IM
Meebo - 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 - 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.
www.joshferguson.org
Depends which side of the funding you're on.
I mean, if you haven't tried StumbleUpon yet, with its fantastic Firefox extension, you haven't seen nothing yet. Del.icio.us is a very poor design in comparison.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Wasn't the next web revolution supposed to be the semantic web? Didn't we already have pretty good webapps? Doesn't this count as evolution, rather then revolution? Are these people not aware of the semantic web future, or are giving up on it, or what?
1. Build Steenking Web v2.0 site 2. Let users generate tagged content 3. Display as much Google- and Ebay tag-related-ads as you can. 4. ??? 5. PROFIT ! At least, that is what I am working on.
Damnit Jim, I'm [root@localhost w00t]#, not an AD-Adminstrator(tm) !
Can someone do a Web2.0 app with really bright saturated colours? Please!!