Now, I can't say I fully understand the differences quite yet but II'll try my best to explain.
Web 1.0 was a promise of hypertextual interactivity. It was a great theory yet it didn't quite take off, mostly due to internet speeds and poor technology.
Web 2.0 is beginning to be what web 1.0 was supposed to be and possibly more.
Web 2.0 is heavily about participatory culture. These days you can publish any sort of media with ease. It is an application that is mostly about communication and community rather than business and static information like web 1.0.
Something important: Web 1.0 is a retronym. It was never called Web 1.0 becuase when it was invented no one could comprehend it being so much more than it was originally.
Web 1.0 only came around when people thought the web had evolved into web 2.0.
In the lecture Tama showed us a table showing some differences between web 1.0 and 2.0.
It was a bit like the one on this web site.
Heres the table written by O'Reilly;
| Web 1.0 | Web 2.0 | |
|---|---|---|
| DoubleClick | --> | Google AdSense |
| Ofoto | --> | Flickr |
| Akamai | --> | BitTorrent |
| mp3.com | --> | Napster |
| Britannica Online | --> | Wikipedia |
| personal websites | --> | blogging |
| evite | --> | upcoming.org and EVDB |
| domain name speculation | --> | search engine optimization |
| page views | --> | cost per click |
| screen scraping | --> | web services |
| publishing | --> | participation |
| content management systems | --> | wikis |
| directories (taxonomy) | --> | tagging ("folksonomy") |
| stickiness | --> | syndication |
It's interesting to see how so many components of the web has evolved.
This table was posted in 2005 so its missing some important websites such as facebook and youtube.
I believe it may need rethinking soon, I've found the web has changed a lot over the last five years and it doesn't look like staying the same anytime soon...
No comments:
Post a Comment