• Save
web 2.0
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

web 2.0

on

  • 2,667 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,667
Views on SlideShare
2,665
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 2

http://www.slideshare.net 1
http://thwarunee.wordpress.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

web 2.0 web 2.0 Presentation Transcript

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