The document discusses the unique aspects of Web 2.0 applications compared to Web 1.0. It analyzes how well modern web applications implement the original aspirations of hypertext pioneers, such as supporting search, dynamic content, collaboration and more. Web 2.0 applications fulfill many of these aspirations through features like tagging, comments, APIs and continual updates. However, their structures are not always navigable due to the "feral hypertext" that emerges from widespread collaboration.

1. what makes Web 2.0 applications unique? 30 October 2006 Wesley Willett CS260

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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.

5. Disclaimer (2.0)

6. Web 2.0: Hypertext by Any Other Name?

7. Vannevar Bush | Memex As We May Think - 1945

8. Ted Nelson | “Hypertext” 1965 Doug Engelbart | oNLine System “ Mother of all Demos” - 1968

9. Lippman, MIT | Aspen Movie Map 1st hypermedia system - 1978

10. 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.

11. Aspirations of Hypertext | Millard & Ross Search Structure Adaptive Versioning Authoring 5 major categories

12. 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?

13. Aspirations | Search Content Context Structural

14. Web 2.0 | Search Content: Explicit text search (Prevalent in 1.0)

15. Web 2.0 | Search Context: Implicating tags and other metadata Structural: Not commonly seen. Examples?

16. Aspirations | Structure & Content Typed n-ary links Composition Extended navigation structures User Trails

17. Web 2.0 | Structure & Content Typed n-ary links: Only in research systems?

18. Web 2.0 | Structure & Content Composition: ex) Flickr photo collections

19. Web 2.0 | Structure & Content Extended navigation structures: ex) last.fm Tag Radio

20. Web 2.0 | Structure & Content User Trails: ex) Amazon

21. Aspirations | Dynamic / Adaptive Content Structures Computation over the network Personalization

22. Web 2.0 | Dynamic / Adaptive Content: Low-level support with php, javascript, etc. Higher-level paradigms like AJAX ex) much of the modern web

23. Web 2.0 | Dynamic / Adaptive Structures: ex) Flickr Explore ex) Digg Spy

24. Web 2.0 | Dynamic / Adaptive Computation over the network: ex) web-based productivity apps.

25. Web 2.0 | Dynamic / Adaptive Personalization: ex) My Yahoo!, Everything!

26. Aspirations | Versioning Entity Network

27. Web 2.0 | Versioning Entity - Wikis, but not much else.

28. Web 2.0 | Versioning Network: twiki, etc. Also, versioning entire apps incrementally “ End of the software release cycle.”

29. Aspirations | Authoring Private Annotation Public Annotation Global Collaboration Restricted Collaboration Extensibility

30. Web 2.0 | Authoring Private Annotation: ex) primitive blogs, editing basic html

31. Web 2.0 | Authoring Public Annotation: ex) blogging + comments

32. Web 2.0 | Authoring Global Collaboration: ex) review/commendation systems ex) Wikipedia

33. Web 2.0 | Authoring Extensibility: Public APIs http://programmableweb.com/apis

34. How do the Applications Stack Up? Millard and Ross, HT06

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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?

38. 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

39. 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

40. An Exercise

41. 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

42. Although if we did just want to find out… http://web2.0validator.com

43. Blogs, Wikis, & Beyond

44. Blurring the Distinctions Between Authors and Readers Blogging & Comments Wikis Ratings (& meta-ratings)

45. 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.

46. Frequency of Link and Quote Sources in Selected Topical Blogs Scott Carter ,The Role of the Author in Topical Blogs. HT’05

47. Other Models of Accumulating Information ex) Wikipedia ex)Urban Dictionary

48. 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

49. 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?