Today everyone talks about "Multimedia" websites and "Web 2.0" interactive websites. How do you currently describe a "Web2.0" website? Also, if you were to have a vision of what "WEB 3.0" will be how will you describe it?
How interactive can the web be?
Answers (27)
Web 2.0 is typically differentiating from Web 1.0 by not being a static online billboard. So, a web 2.0 site has to make its focus the organic content provided by its users. To compel users to give their time and energy to providing content, the site needs to be easy to use and offer some sort of reward (like the ability to be recognized for contributions, for example).
Web 3.0? I think web 3.0 will be defined by crossing mediums. Right now a select few websites have broken out of the typical computer / web-browser box... but most are only partially functional on cellular devices. Web 3.0 will be the webs full liberation from the computer.
Have a look at this ttp://www.opennetworkers.info/forum/topic/show?id=644203%3ATopic%3A60849&xgs=1
I think Ray did a great job in analyzing the matter
Links:
Clarification added 10 months ago:
oeps, not the complete url
http://www.opennetworkers.info/forum/topic/show?id=644203%3ATopic%3A60849&xgs=1
I think wikipedia described the best answer of what web 3.0 is.
Links:
Matt T
Web Developer at philly.com
Best Answers in: Telecommunications (2), Professional Books and Resources (1), Computer Networking (1), Web Development (1)
I personally do not refer to the web by this numbering system. I don't feel that its accurate in anyway shape or form. I do feel that the web has evolved quite significantly from what we saw ten years ago. Going forward, I can see interactivity, personalization and mobility being the the front runners of the push for more diverse development.
Web 2.0 = web site which allow a better interaction with people.
Web 3.0 = web semantic.
Ajay O
Director, Analytics
Best Answers in: Commercial Real Estate (1), Personnel Policies (1), Staffing and Recruiting (1), Offshoring and Outsourcing (1), Business Analytics (1), Business Plans (1), Using LinkedIn (1)
it will less impressive than Web 4.0....
I am personally waiting for the Web Pentium (5.0)...
the web can be interactive for voice, video,text messages...and it always was...just getting more efficient with better data targeting, faster internet and better technologies. it has evolved continuously...there was no point where web 1.0 became web 2.0...these are buzz words coined by big consultants or word smiths.
Links:
Marc-Alexandre V
► Producer at Artifex Animation Studios ► Designer ► MyLink500.com
Best Answers in: Business Development (2), Using LinkedIn (2), Offshoring and Outsourcing (1), Interface Design (1), Product Design (1), Software Development (1)
In theory, the definitions are thus:
Web 2.0: provides a mean for the user to feedback into the system (think of the various social media sites, or sites with complex interfaces that changes according to user's requests)
Web 3.0: still in development, but should be an "intelligent web" -- will automate many tasks, such as searching. Also, more networking, and available on more platforms (mobile, etc.).
In practice, however, these are more marketing descriptors than anything else. The real Web is a continuum, starting from basic static pages, all the way to complex Flash sites.
Links:
Jon W. H
Writer and Speaker at Procurement Insights
Best Answers in: Supply Chain Management (12), Government Policy (2), Small Business (2), Enterprise Software (2), Purchasing (1), Organizational Development (1), Planning (1), Career Management (1), Professional Networking (1), Computers and Software (1), Using LinkedIn (1)
Here is a link to an article I just published that provides an overview of an association that is making the transition to the Web 2.0 platform.
Just as a side note, you should also be looking ahead to Web 4.0, which extends beyond the considerable limitations of the semantic-based Web 3.0 platform.
Links:
Clarification added 10 months ago:
By the way, here is another link to an article I wrote that provides some historical content in terms of the evolution of Web 1.0 through to Web 3.0, and the practical application of Web 4.0 in the modern supply chain.
Sir Tim Berners Lee of course was the chief architect behind Web 1.0, and is working with his group on introducing the Web 3.0 platform.
http://www.evancarmichael.com/Small-Business-Consulting/2289/Social-Networking-and-the-Modern-Supply-Chain-A-Dialogue-Spanning-Multiple-Social-Networks.html
Currently I view web 2.0 as community sites that have evolved as MySpace, Facebook, where there is a mass of interaction in a social sense, but also a high developer involvement into evolving the site far beyond the intitial scope of the site.
I see web 3.0 as making the web work for the user to facilitate much more of an active role in everyday things without focus on the site, but on the content or even the browser. So multimedia content wont be viewed in youtube, but will be accessible directly from your desktop by voice or a simple text search/picture search. Accessibility of content will be much more free and easier for both very young and very old, brifging the generation gap! A big vision, but I believe that the web has a prominent role to play in many more areas of society in a positive way.
Matteo P
Independent Graphic Designer | Senior Web Developer | Web Designer | Photographer | Illustrator
Best Answers in: Graphic Design (1)
I think the "social network" definition for web 2.0 is ok.
Talking about the "3.0": if the numbering system if to let the masses approach it easily I think we are still far from that.
Semantic Web (which is actually what is above web2.0) requires a good knowledge of the underlying technologies, and those could seem pretty awkward to someone.
Infact recently, Hank Williams (who runs whydoeseverythingsuck.com), proposed to rename "semantic web" to "graph web"...
Links:
Beverly K. G
Business Guru, Marketing Integrator, Idea Champion, Problem-Solver / View My Personal Online Resume: www.bevgarvin.com
I disagree that Web 2.0 is defined by Social Networking.
Web 1.0 is static messaging (one way communication).
Web 2.0 is about INTERACTING, collaborating providing opportunities for two way communication. While Social Networking is a great example of this, it is not the definition of it. For instance if you go to a site that allows the user to participate in a survey or change the skin of the screen they are examples of 2.0 funcitonality, but they do not have to be a social networking site to be web 2.0. Wikipedia has some excellent articles on this.
Web 3.0 has yet to truly be defined because trends and technology will ultimately shape its true definition. But I think it is safe to say it will be the next evolution of interaction, even further steps in connectivity and collaboration or what is also referred to as Semantic Web.
Links:
Seems we're all reading much the same source material (Wikipedia, TBL etc) but coming up with very different interpretations. Hardly surprising given that:
- there's still room for debate about exactly what Web 1.0 and 2.0 are/were
- Web 3.0 seems to exist mainly as a wireframe to hang speculation from.
HOWEVER, my twopenn'th is that, through Web 2.0, we've witnessed a significant change in the way events and relationships are formed and developed - we've moved from a broadcast/publishing world to one where everyone can have their own voice - the democratisation of the means of creation and dissemination of content.
That's a huge shift... it's meant that 'opinion formers' can affect not just those in the immediate area, but anywhere in the world. The traditional media channels are still struggling to cope with the changes this has brought on, witness editorials from the likes of Andrew O'Neill pleading for us to believe that the public will always put more trust in Broadsheet Newspapers (like the ones he has edited or written for) rather than blogs and social networking. Um... Hitler Diaries anyone?
So where to next? For me it's a couple of main things:
- ubiquity: Web 3.0 will refused to be caged inside a computer monitor or the screen of a mobile/PDA
- relevance: e.g increased ability to get results that are personalised to location/observed past behaviour to provide a more intelligent response
Of course, it also entails much more usable data being collected by those guys who 'don't do evil'... but consumers have proved again and again that they'll make that sacrifice if they get something they value in return (c.f. Tesco Clubcard).
Web 2.0 and 3.0 are both marketing terms which roughly translated simply mean "hype."
It's called transcendence. Just like any other industry that transcended through innovation and information expansion. The web is transcending in itself. Freakonmics illustrates in many cases about how civilzation has evolved through the value and dependency of information over time. (Like why doctors can charge rates they do, and realtors get their fees, purely based on information specialities, normal people are deprived of) Civilization become more effecient as information channels increase.
The web merely has exploded and opened channels of information. Millions of blogs, social web, information rich experiences etc. The presentation layer improves, information is more accesible and thus the web transcendes. It has nothing to do with versions, it's just how we like to classify versions of innovation, progress and change of the norm.
I honestly suspect growth to exceed, more broadband capabilities and accessibility. The internet accessible through radio bandwidth, in every home like a radio signal. (this is what google is striving for)
It becomes involuntary in our daily lives and the internet accelerates information sharing. Our children will have access to more information then I did as a child. The growth of the web will just continue to explode.
Our daily lives will be accelerated through cloud computing. Less dependency of localized software. That I feel will be the next transcendence, or perhaps as they will dub web 3.0. Businesses will move to web platforms, logistics will be web driven. Data and information piped through clouds, shared universally. GPS integrating in the mix and the power of mobile like the iPhone will only contribute to the version of the web.
The versioning of the web (2.0, 3.0) is a way to describe progress in my opinion. Progress of innovation.
Brian H
Founder/CEO at mPower Consulting | Founder/CEO at MyAdvice Media
Best Answers in: Small Business (3), Starting Up (2), Staffing and Recruiting (1), Mobile Marketing (1)
I would have to agree with Keith. Web 2.0 has very much focused on the fact that the end user (you visiting a site) can now not only interact with the site, but control the site, customize the site, add to the site, remove from the site, and so on. It's all about the end user interacting with the site and the other users of the sites (blogs, wikis, online communities, social networks, etc.)
I would also agree that Web 3.0 is likely going to be the freedom from the box (computer.) We already see that the Internet is now accessible on mobile devices, and although not too many sites are mobile phone enabled, that is likely the direction of the web.
Essentially, accessing sites when you want them, how you want them, and one what device you want them!
Lloyd M
Developer at Idea Integration
Best Answers in: Software Development (3), Web Development (2), Computers and Software (1)
Like a few others here (albeit, the small minority), I tend to somewhat scoff at this numbered versioning system of the web. The web has gone through many changes over the years and there are no real milestones to measure these releases. In fact, many of today's definitions of Web 2.0 actually applied back in 1998. It just wasn't as hip or flashy and there were fewer people online to appreciate it.
The biggest advantage of this marketing hype is that it is wonderfully vague. Fuzzy concepts and "next-generation"-sounding terms are great for rallying around without actually committing to anything specific. We might as well declare that Web 3.0 has arrived since, effectively, it still doesn't change a thing (just like Web 2.0).
David D
Adjunct Professor, Head R&D - The Web Based Office, myNet.OFFICE ® - NetthruOffice.com
- CEO of GOOGLE when asked to define Web 2.0, web 3.0.. in May 2007
said" ...But if I were to guess what Web 3.0 is, I would tell you that it's a different way of building applications... My prediction would be that Web 3.0 will ultimately be seen as applications which are pieced together. There are a number of characteristics: the applications are relatively small, the data is in the cloud, the applications can run on any device, PC or mobile phone, the applications are very fast and they're very customizable. Furthermore, the applications are distributed virally: literally by social networks, by email. You won't go to the store and purchase them... That's a very different application model than we've ever seen in computing."
—Eric Schmidt
I agree with Mr Schmidt that the web 3.0 will be "...it's a different way of building applications... and data is in the cloud...".
But to my the term Web 2.0, or 3.0 or 5.0 is not matter. The matter is that if you can build some thing, some applications that help average Mom and Pop stores, small and mid size businesses, Entrepreneurs who can use the technology to increase productivity and profit, and improve their life their business. Then I think it will be the ultimate web. X.0. The point is that the Consumers, who are the ones will paid to use the services, are not concerned about the technology. All they are concerned is the value of services that they can get from the Web.
Links:
Geoff F
"Hands-on" Software Architect and Senior Developer
Best Answers in: Computers and Software (12), Software Development (11), Web Development (11), Enterprise Software (7), Information Storage (5), Wireless (5), Blogging (4), Offshoring and Outsourcing (3), Telecommunications (3), Starting Up (2), Information Security (2), Occupational Training (1), Graphic Design (1), Search Marketing (1), Change Management (1), Planning (1), Non-profit Management (1), Professional Organizations (1), Biotech (1), E-Commerce (1), Computer Networking (1), Using LinkedIn (1)
We've all heard the hype. For me Web 2.0 is specifically to be user centric in the design (which typically means interactive) and, wherever possible to encourage a community around whatever the site promotes. Technically this means using technology such as Ajax, Services, REST architecture, interoperation with other sites and services using Web service, clound, XML.
Web 3.0 is moving to a more complex experience that uses a thicker client, old school would be flash, Java Apps, newer school, silver light that more fully exploits the client side graphic capability to more fully improve the interactive experience. With the same capability, the interactivity can more fully involve sight, sound and other devices.
Web 2.0 - User centric interface with access / contribution to socialized information.
Web 2.5 - Geo-spacial centric information interacted with by social and business networks.
Web 3.0 - Information awareness in relation to self, other information, and its relationship to geo-spacial location and human points of contact and their predetermined / dynamic preferences.
The shift from pots of information that you muddle through to self aware knowledge systems will begin at this point. The interaction will happen not based on simple search or single point of information but will include things like bio feedback, ocular movement, cerebral activity linked to an ad hoc artificial intelligence system that can sort through thousands of pieces of information in relation to the end user, other users, the environment and its historical and current factors and prior user behavior to present the end user information or choices before they are conscious of the information choices around them.
So how interactive can the web be?
IMMERSIVE
David S
Manager of Product and Business Development at Aptara
Best Answers in: Freelancing and Contracting (1), Manufacturing (1), Engineering (1), Enterprise Software (1), Computers and Software (1)
Web 2.0 has three main components:
* Interactivity (including social networking)
* Accessibility (both for humans and machines)
* Integrations (mashups, building from components like Google Maps)
In Web 1.0, users were just trying to move from print to online. Even if there was a catalog where you could order, it was no different than print.
Now, we can interact with sites - consider social bookmarking like DIGG. If you like something you can Digg it, marking it for others to see. Hospitals have pages for new parents to build a baby blog - very Web 2.0, and fundamentally different from a birth center brochure.
Less apparent, but equally important is the move from restrictive constructs like frames to CSS driven content management systems for websites. Easily extended, these can enable multiple languages, localization, and be optimized for mobile use, search engines, and screen readers for low vision users. (Joomla! is an example).
The concept of the mashup is central to Web 2.0. I've seen mashups of Craigslist or Angie's list with Google Maps, Flickr, and other interactive sites. Put two things together and you can get something useful and unique.
One of the other answers here mentioned Wikipedia's description of Web 3.0. To me, that's closer to web 4.0. It will be a while before we have the semantic tagging needed to build an intelligent web, and it will be some time before software can independently name 5 cities whose names are also the same as the names of animals. (Buffalo, NY; Martin WV, Caribou ME to start you out...).
I think Web 3.0 will be about connectivity and availability. Mobile devices, high speed devices, and cheap computing for more people. In the early days of the telephone, nobody would have thought that every office desk would have a phone, and that people would call from one desk to another in the same company. That's the kind of saturation we will see with my vision of Web 3.0.
Links:
Clarification added 10 months ago:
Adding a few web resources. Also new OS's will play a part. Look at the collaboration in http://www.eyeos.info or the low cost and practicality of distros like http://www.ubuntu.com
IMHO web 2.0 is probably best defined by the technologies used, with AJAX as a key enabling technology. Attempting to define it with other criteria always seem to get messy ; ) As far as the future goes it's up to us to figure that one out, I think that "web n.0" is restrictive naming convention, and as soon as you put restrictions on something it can't grow or evolve.
Links:
Web 2.0 should not be confused with multimedia or graphics. Web 2.0 is more about bringing usability and increasing performance of web based applications compared to desktop applications. Web 2.0 applications can bring experience of any desktop based applications in a web interface.
Ram Kumar
Dreamajax Technologies
Links:
Wallace J
Multimedia Producer, Mind Taffy Design; Graphics Design, VR and i3D programming for Acrobat 3D PDF
Best Answers in: Web Development (7), Using LinkedIn (5), Events Marketing (4), Graphic Design (3), Advertising (2), Computers and Software (2), Education and Schools (1), Mentoring (1), Conference Venues (1), Financial Regulation (1), Staffing and Recruiting (1), Internationalization and Localization (1), Direct Marketing (1), Guerrilla Marketing (1), Internet Marketing (1), Viral Marketing (1), Business Development (1), Public Relations (1), Sales Techniques (1), Change Management (1), Project Management (1), Personal Debt Management (1), Branding (1), Market Research and Definition (1), Small Business (1), E-Commerce (1), Wireless (1)
Multimedia refers to the new media and rich media elements of the site, whereas 2.0 refers to the Social nature of the website users interactions.
Walls. MindTaffyLLC@Yahoo.com
Links:
There are several reasons not to get into what we think about Web 2.0 or what it means. One, it is clearly on the decline. Two, the subject has been discussed and over-analyzed for some time. As for Web 3.0, it will simply bring to fruition the visions of an intelligent internet. It will blend the beauty of cross platform computing from web, mobile, traditional networking, distributed database development and some artificial intelligence, ie, natural language processing, image processing, voice and data. (banks, restaurants, next-level social networking.)
Personally, i envision this version of the web development cycle as the precursor for how everyday life will be experienced. Soon, with the help of major industry, virtual worlds will truly exist. And interaction between the web and humans will be seamless.
Yes, we do have the ability to perform a few things via the web, but imagine being able to do it from one place on the web. We are not there yet, but we are getting there. Just my thoughts...
Web 2.0:
- Collaborative websites
- Interactive & Communal Websites
- Democratic !
Web 3.0:
- Intelligent applications
- Open identity
- Open technologies
Noga Yinon
http://www.linkedin.com/in/yinons
yinons100@gmail.com
נגה ינון
Well, i spent long hours to find some realistic attributes to MARKET it as web 3.0. I am still working on a project using ASP.NET & AJAX to make web 3.0 type social network with some new ideas ...
Web 3.0 is just a combination of latest technologies and innovative ideas. For example, i wish to see how far the person is sitting from myself with whom i am chatting right now.
cheers,
yahia
Pankaj T
Business Dev. Exec. at Second Foundation
Best Answers in: Small Business (1), Enterprise Software (1)
web 2.0 = online software, dynamic interacting entities like HyperOffice, rather than the static pages of yesteryear.
web 3.0 = semantic web and virtual reality
