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.
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
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
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.