On 3/24/06, Gerhard Schauer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > How do people feel about this Web 2.0 moniker? Is it useful? <
>

Like Simon, I only became aware of the term about 6 weeks ago. My son,
Jackson West, writes a column on Web 2.0 at Gigaom <http://www.gigaom.com/>,
so, of course, I read it now and again just to see his name in print and
remind myself he is earning money rather than asking for it.

I get the distinct impression Web 2.0 is almost anything new that happened
since the dot.com bust. It involves high-bandwidth, streaming anything,
interactivity, and collaboration.

Ajax is a development poster child for interactivity, is it not? But I think
the social networking and blogging phenoms are a huge indication of the Web
moving beyond static information delivery. The growth of Web content has
forced even ordinary human beings to find a means of managing their
information, so it only makes sense the next step was sharing it.

It is too bad that the appellation is non-descript  - 2.0 implying only that
it is somehow newer and different. I am much more interested in how user
behavior is changing as the Web changes and, regardless of what it is
called, this stage of the evolution is intelligently designed (and, yes,
that pun is intentional.)

--
Mary Deaton
Deaton Interactive Design and SodaBlue Partners
Techne, a blog at http://www.mmdeaton.com

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Tip of the Day: Suspend your subscription if using auto replies
     CHI-WEB: www.sigchi.org/web POSTINGS: mailto:[log in to unmask]
              MODERATORS: mailto:[log in to unmask]
       SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES & FAQ:  www.sigchi.org/web/faq.html
    --------------------------------------------------------------