The astounding Neon Night-Rider and the return of the web

Since its inception, the buzzword has been used almost too much. The term “Web 2.0,” though its use is generally attributed to those less involved with the development of websites (the general public), its use is not specific to any group of people. It’s a helpful way to explain a set of technologies, only with one problem—the meaning of Web 2.0 is not known. When O’Reilly originally coined the term, they had a set list of definitions for Web 2.0, but, as many authors noted, the Web 2.0 conference was absent of those who would definitely be able to give a more concrete definition of Web 2.0 to developers. But developers nonetheless use the term as a sort of translation between the business-oriented and the technically-minded people. After all, it’s friendly than explaining perhaps the several different technical definitions that encompass Web 2.0.

But the term is increasingly confusing, as some attribute the term to more buzzwords (or what this author considers buzzwords based on his own biases). Thus, it does not really serve a purpose except to bridge communication, but the problem with the term is that it is a misnomer. There is no “Web 1.0″ nor will there be a “Web 3.0.” Many technical writers have written online that it is, simply, another way of saying certain technologies are useful.

I started learning HTML 11 years ago, and while it sounds so ancient (especially since I was 10 years old), it’s really not. Those “Web 1.0″ days had the same technologies that make up Web 2.0. Even the HTML was remarkably similar! When we learned HTML in those days, we also had numerous tutorials on JavaScript and for those who were more able to do so, could learn Perl as it applied to CGI, and years down the line, ASP classic, PHP, JSP, and ColdFusion.

However, the uses of JavaScript were a bit dubious. Most JavaScript was used to make scrolling text in the status bar on your browser (where it tells you you’re connecting or finished loading a site), flashing colours upon entering a website, and, probably it’s best use at the time, rollover images. When server-side languages were less in use, rather than using creative ways of protecting websites from hackers, JavaScript could be used to entirely hide the URL you’re going to.

But ask many people from that era and they’ll tell you the same thing—JavaScript was an often irritating addition to a website that caused more trouble than it was worth. So, many developers avoided it until they could use it to handle server-side requests from the client-side. In other words, AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML). Basically, this created a buzzword and with the heavier uses of server-side languages, specifically the ever-popular ASP, allowed developers to fulfill the requests of their clients and customers to build more interactive applications. But, like Web 2.0, AJAX was another term that people used without a definition of it, with one big difference—AJAX can be defined whereas Web 2.0 cannot and is misleading.

Many people search for developers who know AJAX, JavaScript, and XML as though they were separate entities. Like Web 2.0, this can cause a bit of miscommunication and misunderstanding between developer and the powers that be. In my own experiences, it’s often common that AJAX is treated as a separate entity from JavaScript and XML, and Web 2.0 has different meanings based on the amount of research on the topic. For example, in one instance, I’ve seen Web 2.0 refer almost strictly to a set of design principles that can be summarized as “heavy use of graphics and gradients with CSS.” A “Web 2.0″ website is aesthetically pleasing, though now has become a cookie-cutter set of designs that do not use tables and rely solely on CSS for presentation and HTML for structure. “Web 2.0″ could also be, primarily, the heavy use of AJAX. Facebook is heavily representative of this. Users can upload images and crop and edit them without prior image manipulation. Also, users can edit profiles and information without the page reloading, and instead getting a message that the changes have been saved. A loading sign will often precede these messages, so you have more immediate awareness of what’s going on. Before this practice, JavaScript code often generated a boring and annoying alert box telling you the same information, much to a user’s chagrin. But now JavaScript lets you fill out forms that tell you whether or not you’ve followed instructions before submitting, making JavaScript useful again.

Another definition of Web 2.0 applies to websites that are “human friendly” (which is odd since a website’s purpose is to provide information, making all websites “human friendly”), but the main difference is that users can communicate and share information with necessarily interaction with the author. Most websites like this are called “social networking,” which based on my biases is another buzzword. Websites like MySpace fall under this category, only MySpace began before “Web 2.0,” and many other websites that are treated as “Web 1.0″ sites have always had these “Web 2.0″ features. Also, rather than a single profile page where users can comment, the Web 1.0 days instead had chat rooms such as WBS, which were almost bulletin board systems with one major difference over a forum or other application—the communication was naturally immediate and direct. It worked like IRC but from your browser, more interactive and modern-looking, etc.

These old applications were no different than modern ones. Rather, they accomplished the same goal but behaved slightly differently. Because of this, Web 2.0 is not only inappropriate since no changes to the Internet have been made, but also meaningless. Instead, though they may be buzzwords, terms like AJAX are more useful and explanatory of your outlook for your website. CSS layouts are similarly more explanatory and easier to understand for those who can honour your requests. That doesn’t mean you have to stop using the term altogether; indeed, the term has spread so much that its use will not stop any time soon. However, it’s best to provide your own explanation of Web 2.0 when you want applications to be built. This allows your developers to know what matters most to you, and providing your own explanation is the most proactive approach you could take to complete satisfaction.

Tags: AJAX, buzzwords, web 2.0

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.