web 2.0

1,658 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,658
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
53
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • web 2.0

    1. 1. what makes Web 2.0 applications unique? 30 October 2006 Wesley Willett CS260
    2. 2. Web 2.0 According to O’Reilly <ul><li>“ Web 2.0 is the network as platform , spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it , consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an &quot;architecture of participation,&quot; and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.” </li></ul><ul><li>- Tim O'Reilly October 01, 2005 </li></ul>
    3. 3. Outline <ul><li>From Early Hypertext to Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Implementing aspirations of hypertext pioneers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What “2.0” adds that “1.0” lacked </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A group discussion exercise </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Authorship and Information Aggregation in Blogs, Wikis, and Beyond (time permitting) </li></ul>
    4. 4. Drawing on Readings <ul><li>Millard, D. E. and Ross, M. 2006. Web 2.0: Hypertext by Any Other Name?. In HT’06. </li></ul><ul><li>Carter, S. 2005. The Role of the Author in Topical Blogs. In CHI 2005. </li></ul><ul><li>Walker, J. 2005. Feral Hypertext. In HT’05. </li></ul>
    5. 5. Disclaimer (2.0)
    6. 6. Web 2.0: Hypertext by Any Other Name?
    7. 7. Vannevar Bush | Memex <ul><li>As We May Think - 1945 </li></ul>
    8. 8. Ted Nelson | “Hypertext” <ul><li>1965 </li></ul>Doug Engelbart | oNLine System “ Mother of all Demos” - 1968
    9. 9. Lippman, MIT | Aspen Movie Map <ul><li>1st hypermedia system - 1978 </li></ul>
    10. 10. Vision of hypertext/hypermedia <ul><li>A non-linear medium of information </li></ul><ul><li>Not just the WWW </li></ul><ul><li>To look at: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How well do “Web 2.0” systems implement/refine “ideal” hypertext/hypermedia models? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How are they better than “Web 1.0”? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An interesting lens through which to examine what makes these new systems unique, useful. </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Aspirations of Hypertext | Millard & Ross <ul><li>Search </li></ul><ul><li>Structure </li></ul><ul><li>Adaptive </li></ul><ul><li>Versioning </li></ul><ul><li>Authoring </li></ul>5 major categories
    12. 12. Aspirations of Hypertext | Millard & Ross <ul><li>As we step through: </li></ul><ul><li>What systems realize these aspirations? </li></ul><ul><li>How well do they do so? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the implications for how we use these systems? </li></ul>
    13. 13. Aspirations | Search <ul><li>Content </li></ul><ul><li>Context </li></ul><ul><li>Structural </li></ul>
    14. 14. Web 2.0 | Search <ul><li>Content: Explicit text search (Prevalent in 1.0) </li></ul>
    15. 15. Web 2.0 | Search <ul><li>Context: Implicating tags and other metadata </li></ul><ul><li>Structural: Not commonly seen. Examples? </li></ul>
    16. 16. Aspirations | Structure & Content <ul><li>Typed n-ary links </li></ul><ul><li>Composition </li></ul><ul><li>Extended navigation structures </li></ul><ul><li>User Trails </li></ul>
    17. 17. Web 2.0 | Structure & Content <ul><li>Typed n-ary links: Only in research systems? </li></ul>
    18. 18. Web 2.0 | Structure & Content <ul><li>Composition: ex) Flickr photo collections </li></ul>
    19. 19. Web 2.0 | Structure & Content <ul><li>Extended navigation structures: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ex) last.fm Tag Radio </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. Web 2.0 | Structure & Content <ul><li>User Trails: ex) Amazon </li></ul>
    21. 21. Aspirations | Dynamic / Adaptive <ul><li>Content </li></ul><ul><li>Structures </li></ul><ul><li>Computation over the network </li></ul><ul><li>Personalization </li></ul>
    22. 22. Web 2.0 | Dynamic / Adaptive <ul><li>Content: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Low-level support with php, javascript, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Higher-level paradigms like AJAX </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ex) much of the modern web </li></ul></ul>
    23. 23. Web 2.0 | Dynamic / Adaptive <ul><li>Structures: ex) Flickr Explore </li></ul><ul><li>ex) Digg Spy </li></ul>
    24. 24. Web 2.0 | Dynamic / Adaptive <ul><li>Computation over the network: </li></ul><ul><li>ex) web-based productivity apps. </li></ul>
    25. 25. Web 2.0 | Dynamic / Adaptive <ul><li>Personalization: ex) My Yahoo!, Everything! </li></ul>
    26. 26. Aspirations | Versioning <ul><li>Entity </li></ul><ul><li>Network </li></ul>
    27. 27. Web 2.0 | Versioning <ul><li>Entity - Wikis, but not much else. </li></ul>
    28. 28. Web 2.0 | Versioning <ul><li>Network: twiki, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Also, versioning entire apps incrementally </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ End of the software release cycle.” </li></ul></ul>
    29. 29. Aspirations | Authoring <ul><li>Private Annotation </li></ul><ul><li>Public Annotation </li></ul><ul><li>Global Collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Restricted Collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Extensibility </li></ul>
    30. 30. Web 2.0 | Authoring <ul><li>Private Annotation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ex) primitive blogs, editing basic html </li></ul></ul>
    31. 31. Web 2.0 | Authoring <ul><li>Public Annotation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ex) blogging + comments </li></ul></ul>
    32. 32. Web 2.0 | Authoring <ul><li>Global Collaboration: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ex) review/commendation systems </li></ul></ul><ul><li>ex) Wikipedia </li></ul>
    33. 33. Web 2.0 | Authoring <ul><li>Extensibility: Public APIs </li></ul>http://programmableweb.com/apis
    34. 34. How do the Applications Stack Up? Millard and Ross, HT06
    35. 35. Which of these aspirations do Web 2.0 apps fulfill? <ul><li>Content Search </li></ul><ul><li>Context Search </li></ul><ul><li>Structural Search </li></ul><ul><li>Typed n-ary links </li></ul><ul><li>Composition </li></ul><ul><li>Extending Navigation Structures </li></ul><ul><li>User Trails </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamic Content </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamic Structures </li></ul><ul><li>Computation over Network </li></ul><ul><li>Personalization </li></ul><ul><li>Versioning </li></ul><ul><li>Private Annotations </li></ul><ul><li>Public Annotations </li></ul><ul><li>Restricted Collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Global Collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Extensibility </li></ul>
    36. 36. What other aspects of modern web apps aren’t covered here? <ul><li>Millard & Ross only look at Flickr , a few wikis/blogs </li></ul><ul><li>What about social networks ? </li></ul><ul><li>Doesn’t address interface richness </li></ul>
    37. 37. Some Questions <ul><li>Which of these aspirations do specific web apps fulfill? </li></ul><ul><li>How much of this is application dependent? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are some of Millard & Ross’ ideals not useful or practical for many systems? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Are these attributes useful criteria to consider when classifying, analyzing, and designing web applications? </li></ul>
    38. 38. O’Reilly | Classifying Web 2.0 Apps <ul><li>Another very different way of grouping these applications. </li></ul><ul><li>“ A hierarchy of ‘Web 2.0-ness’.” </li></ul>http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/07/levels_of_the_game.html
    39. 39. O’Reilly | Classifying Web 2.0 Apps <ul><li>Level 0: App would work as well offline from a local data cache </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ex) MapQuest </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Level 1: App can and does exist offline, but gains features online </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ex) Writely </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Level 2: App could exist offline, but uniquely benefits by being online </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ex) Flickr </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Level 3: App could only exist on the net </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ex) Craigslist </li></ul></ul>http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/07/levels_of_the_game.html
    40. 40. An Exercise
    41. 41. An Exercise <ul><li>Millard & Ross’ Ideals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Search </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Content, Context, Structure </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Structure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Composition, Navigation Structures, User Trails </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adaptive/Dynamic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Dynamic Content & Structures, Computation over the Network, Personalization </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Versioning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Entity, Network </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Authoring </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Private, Public, Collaboration, Extensibility </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>O’Reilly’s Hierarchy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Level 0 : Web adds little </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level 1 : Minor benefits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level 2 : Unique benefits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level 3 : Could only exist online </li></ul></ul>
    42. 42. Although if we did just want to find out… http://web2.0validator.com
    43. 43. Blogs, Wikis, & Beyond
    44. 44. Blurring the Distinctions Between Authors and Readers <ul><li>Blogging & Comments </li></ul><ul><li>Wikis </li></ul><ul><li>Ratings (& meta-ratings) </li></ul>
    45. 45. Blogs | Accumulating and Digesting Information <ul><li>Information from a variety of sources. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Posts reference other blogs, outside sources, and introduce new material. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multiple authors create and digest content and structure through posts, links, and comments. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Success, conflict resolution largely gauged via popularity and stickiness of the content. </li></ul>
    46. 46. Frequency of Link and Quote Sources in Selected Topical Blogs Scott Carter ,The Role of the Author in Topical Blogs. HT’05
    47. 47. Other Models of Accumulating Information <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>ex) Wikipedia </li></ul><ul><li>ex)Urban Dictionary </li></ul>
    48. 48. Jill Walker | Feral Hypertext <ul><li>“ Massive possibility for collaboration and emergence in the network creates truly feral and uncontrollable hypertext.” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wikipedia, Flickr, CiteULike, del.icio.us as examples of feral structures. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Important to consider how to make them navigable. </li></ul></ul>Jill Walker, Feral Hypertext:When Hypertext Literature Escapes Control. HT’05
    49. 49. A Few Final Questions <ul><li>How successful are these systems at creating and structuring content? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the implications of multiple authorship? </li></ul><ul><li>How do we design web interaction to better facilitate/convey it? </li></ul>

    ×