[Phpwm] Web 2.0

[Elliot Smith]

Dave Holmes wrote:
> Hi Elliot, 
>
> I don't envy having to cover web 2.0 as a topic, because it can not be
> quantified and means different things to different people.
>   
I agree. That was the tack I took. I think Web 2.0 is really nothing 
that different from Web 1.0: it's really a realisation of Tim 
Berners-Lee's original goals. Plus there are dozens of definitions. But 
there are several themes it brings to the fore, design among them; but 
also social software, programs conversing over the web via APIs, RIA, 
the web as a platform, the Long Tail, and so on. Interesting ideas, and 
a good way to add buzz to a company.
> Ask my designer and it is all about font's, colours, logos or as he put it
> "Back to child like icons loud colours" hence our new site....
> (www.neteffekt.co.uk)
> BTW - we know there are compliancy issues even though we have the logo's but
> I haven't even had chance to shave for 3 weeks because of all of the code we
> are writing.... 
>   
Unobtrusive Javascript is a nice approach to solving the accessibility 
issue. Have you tried this? I'm assuming you're writing with PHP; I've 
tried it with Rails and it works really well.
> >From my perspective web 2.0 as a web application developer is great because
> I can now start to implement the kind of interactive functionality I used to
> build into windows applications which includes AJAX et al.
>
> Ask my dad who is a bonifide silver surfer and he couldn't care less even if
> he had heard the term as long as he can find information, book flights,
> holidays make purchases etc.
>   
(But maybe he'd benefit from a more responsive AJAX interface :))
> To put it short badging something as web 2.0 is nigh-on impossible because
> it is like evolution, last time I checked I was not man v3.0.4, that said it
> is a buzz word and from a company owners point of view I will shamelessly
> plug it to my clients, even though we have been doing much of it for the
> last couple of years.
>   
Homo erectus, homo sapiens...
> Dave
>   
Elliot
>
>
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: phpwm-bounces at mailman.lug.org.uk
> [mailto:phpwm-bounces at mailman.lug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Elliot Smith
> Sent: 22 November 2006 19:51
> To: West Midlands PHP User Group
> Subject: Re: [Phpwm] Web 2.0
>
> Phil Beynon wrote:
>   
>> Looking at the Wikipedia definition of Web 2.0 as a supposed semi de 
>> facto standard; Could it not be said that any dynamic or database 
>> driven site is actually definable as a Web 2.0 site?
>> Or at least can't it be said that its aiming towards that definition, 
>> regardless of whether its visitor editable or not?
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>   
>>     
> Phil,
>
> I agree with that sentiment. From one perspective, Web 2.0 is just the web
> as it was intended to be, i.e. participative, write-enabled.
>
> I've spent a while thinking about this over the last couple of weeks as I
> did a seminar on Web 2.0 this morning for OpenAdvantage; if you're
> interested in my thoughts, the presentation is available at:
>
> http://www.openadvantage.org/events/20061122_debunking_web_2point0
>
> I'd be interested on any feedback anyone has.
>
> Elliot
>   
>> _______________________________________________
>> Phpwm mailing list
>> Phpwm at mailman.lug.org.uk
>> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/phpwm
>>   
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phpwm mailing list
> Phpwm at mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/phpwm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phpwm mailing list
> Phpwm at mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/phpwm
>