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.'"

Comments

Worst Piece of Jargon

[ARRRLovin]

1) Web 2.0

Re:Worst Piece of Jargon

[rs79]

Fixed in Web 2.1

*tweet*, flag on the play.

[Tackhead]

> Designtechnica has published their 2006 Best of Web 2.0 list. Some of the sites include Flicker.com,

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.

AJAXify

[MyNymWasTaken]

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?

Digg...

[Eightyford]

Just don't say Digg! It's like reading Slashdot with the filter set at -1. Only worse.

Re:People use these? QWZX

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

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.

Wake me up when Client/SOA hits

[Baldrson]

Harry Fuecks has an insightful article on the two kinds of AJAX "HTML++" and "Client/SOA":

HTML++

AJAX is used to enhance existing HTML forms / user interaction but the fundamental paradigm is still the same as "normal" web applications. Some key smells of this style;

1. Page reloads still happen frequently
2. It's possible (if you make the effort) to degrade gracefully to non-supporting browsers / browsers with JS turned off.
3. Session state still resides on the server.

In practice this is what everyone's doing right now, with varying degrees of success.

...

Client / SOA...

Some of the key smells with Client / SOA;

1. Page reloads are rare, if at all. The application tends to run in a single browser window.
2. It's practically impossible to degrade gracefully, without maintaining seperate code bases.
3. Session state is largely handled by the client.
4. Javascript and the browser are acting as a runtime in the same sense as the Java or .NET runtime.
5. It's going to require specialist developers

I don't think Web 2.0 is going to get really interesting until Client/SOA hits.

All you need to know about Web 2.0...

[Ingolfke]

can be found here

Verdict from the W3C

[iamlucky13]

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

Photos
Flickr.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 /local/ was not found on this server

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.