Slashdot Mirror
The Web 2.0 Conundrum - How Much Control is Too Much?
CrashRoX asks: "One of the big hypes with Web 2.0 is that users should be able to control their content. We then end up with all assortments of mash-ups, widgets, feeds and customized pages/profiles. Given this, where do site admins draw the line on what users can do? MySpace is the best example for this question. Their popularity is based on promoting the fact that you can have a page that displays your personality, customize it and pretty much do whatever you want to it. Over time, they've had security problems with users using JavaScript. That privilege was revoked not too long after. Most recently, they've limited the use of flash controls and have started banning certain widgets (like YouTube and others). Sites like Google let you create your own widgets using an API. How much control from a programming, security and usability point of view should we give users? What guidelines should developers follow for building web 2.0 sites?"
With Web 2.0 the user have no control over their content whatsoever. They give their content to the webmaster. It sits on the webmaster's server and that is effectively beyond the control of the users. Web 2.0 trades the illusion of control for valuable content. I can't edit this comment after clicking submit. Is it my comment or Slashdot's?
No more than two animated gifs, no bigger than 100x100 pixels, on each page. That'd remove half the dross from the web.
When I think of End user I think of the person viewing the page, not someone who is making the page? Ie.. if the End user doesn't want Java Script or Java Applets or funky back grounds... adjust the settings on their browser! What do you mean by End User?
How much control from a programming, security and usability point of view should we give users? What guidelines should developers follow for building web 2.0 sites?"
As much control as reasonably practical, without intruding on other users' security.
For example, a page that only gets seen by me (e.g. a plugin for my customised google homepage) might as well let me write Javascript: to do so wouldn't mess with anyone else's security.
On the other hand, a public page in the myspace.com domain could use javascript to read visitors' cookies and forward them to malicious third parties. If the ability to do this was left open, it would inevitably be exploited. This would impinge upon the users' security, and hence should not be allowed.
...then perhaps you shouldn't be working in the field.
Is this an issue with web 2.0 (whatever that turns out to be) or with the ability for people to host content in general? Surely JS, Flash etc are old tools?
Oh arse
And nuke MySpace from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Nothing in MySpace is "Web 2.0". All the control you have on that site is within the very limited bounds of a form that accepts HTML and CSS. Geocities had a pagebuilder that gave users as much back in 1996. Web 2.0 is about rich interfaces and client side applications. As yet I would argue that there are only two popular Web 2.0 sites. Those are GMail and DeviantArt (and DevArt is flakey at best). The rest are just sites that claim to be Web 2.0 but aren't (Digg, Flickr, MySpace, etc).
As for how much control to give users, give them whatever your resources will allow. If you've got the team strength to be able to firefight a javascript worm (MySpace) then give them a lot. If you've got the bandwidth to give them video upload (YouTube) give them space. If you're a one man team working on a toy website give them a couple of checkboxes and a button.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Preventing access to external content(like most free web hosting providers do) will reduce security risks significantly but then that might be 'too much control'
Hands off content. Let the users post whatever CONTENT they wish. Restricting what code they can post (i.e. JavaScript, etc) is a safety measure that's perfectly reasonable. After all, even the most free nation has laws. http://subuse.net/level2 is a great example. No rules on content. Everyone can edit anyone else's content even. But it's not like they let you post huge scripts. It's about as free and open as a website gets without handing out ftp passwords.
Sugapablo
Myspace and other blogging sites are a different story than the rest of the internet. They are places where users can easily make their own personal webpage. If they want their webpage to be fucked up they can make it fucked up. It's no different than personal geocities or angelfire pages of the past, just easier. Users cant fuck up websites whos purpose is something other than having their own personal website, IE. Slashdot, porn sites, etc. (Yes users can make stupid comments on slashdot but that is different than physically screwing the website up).
The question is ambiguous and too broad, just like "Web 2.0".
Until you frame the question by defining what the heck you mean by that, this discussion will be useless.
The question is asked from the developer's point of view: what should we let users do?
Hopefully, the developers know who the target audience is for the webiste. So, thinking like one of the user's... what would you expect to be able to do?
This is different from what you want to do. You may want to access the personal details of every user... but do you really expect to be able to do that (would you want everyone to access *your* personal details?)
The question's a little too generic. It depends entirely on who the target audience is, and what function the site is performing (is it informational, particapatory or purely commercial/sales driven?)
The "Web 2.0" label means something different to every developer, and it really means nothing to the user. Think of "Web 2.0" as modern-day-mature. What would user's expect to be able to do on a modern website today? Now try and exceed those expectations.
guys said it best.
Most people have no idea what they are doing, and are silently panicking on the inside.
Never give users a choice, they'll invariably choose the wrong one.
If the features and controls you give the user add to and aid the overall functionality, them yes, it's a fit.
While features for features sake can hinder the user.
It's a pretty simple equation really.
So when google started, they had all these other people?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Yes. Google started as a project at Stanford University, first called "BackRub".
Back in the day, noone normal used Flash. Why? Mostly because it crashed Netscape quite often. The other reason was the lack of control the user had. As such, i don't install Flash on my browsers. Even today, and i am happily without those annoying ads. Though, if i really want to see something on YouTube i'll fire up IE on my other computer which has it installed. (*hangs head in shame*)
People just gave in at some point. It's what companies have going for them. Just stop using Flash, or other nasty user-control-limiting plugins, and eventually they'll give more control to the user.
Have you read my journal today?
Eventually too many options and widgets just get annoying.
Not the lead singer of Coldplay