Rich User Experience

March 30, 2012 8 Comments

Hey guys welcome back to my blog for the week, as you all know the topic for this week is Rich
User Experience. I think out of every topic that we have covered from Tim OReillys What is Web
2.0 this topic is by far the most interesting. It can often be hard to pinpoint exactly what a rich
user experience as there are so many different places and situation where a user can have a rich
and satisfying experience. In a nutshell web 2.0 Rich user experiences are derived from the
concatenation of traditional desktop features and a web based environment. As we can all see
by the recent explosion of features on any and all websites that we visit this means that these
sites are providing a very similar level of interaction and capabilities of desktop computing.
HTML5 and AJAX are what makes these web applications capable of performing tasks that are
stereo typically found on some ones desktop machine. I really love the idea that we can now
have an internet application that provides much of the features and general really awesome
things that our expensive desktop programs are capable of. Some web technologies that provide
us with a very rich experience that many of us use everyday are Google Docs, Google Earth, Web
Mail providers and of course YouTube.

YouTube

A great example of a web 2.0 application that utilises rich user experiences to capture and retain
an audience is YouTube. I can safely say that everyone who reads this blog post would have used
YouTube at some point and can see why i have chosen this as an example for a rich user
experience. YouTube provides the tools (with the help of google of course) for an online
community that is driven by sharing and collaboration. YouTube provides so many fantastic
features for all levels of users, meaning you dont have to invest hours of time to see a
worthwhile return in terms of the experience. YouTube has come a long way since the days of its
beginning, we can now see many features that were in the past reserved for powerful desktop
computing machines right there on the web!. YouTube is essentially providing a service to
amateur film makers/animators with the features they give them. Users can simply jump on and
create an animated video within a few minutes using app extensions like Xtranormal Movie
Maker and One True Media. Because many of the videos that are uploaded to Youtube are from
devices not capable of high quality video recording YouTube offers an online movie editor that
can colour correct your video and even stabalise the camera shake. Although some of the
features at this stage are not as developed as the expensive desktop applications we can see the
direction that these types of Web 2.0 user experiences are going.

Reference List:

Watson, J. 2010. Pattern Four Rich User Experiences From INB 347 Lecture

OReilly: What is Web 2.0

Wikipedia for Rich Internet Application

Interesting read on RUE

https://nicholasleach.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/rich-user-experience/

Information and Communications Technology (ICT) can impact student learning when teachers
are digitally literate and understand how to integrate it into curriculum.

Schools use a diverse set of ICT tools to communicate, create, disseminate, store, and manage
information.(6) In some contexts, ICT has also become integral to the teaching-learning
interaction, through such approaches as replacing chalkboards with interactive digital
whiteboards, using students own smartphones or other devices for learning during class time,
and the flipped classroom model where students watch lectures at home on the computer and
use classroom time for more interactive exercises.

When teachers are digitally literate and trained to use ICT, these approaches can lead to higher
order thinking skills, provide creative and individualized options for students to express their
understandings, and leave students better prepared to deal with ongoing technological change
in society and the workplace.(18)

ICT issues planners must consider include: considering the total cost-benefit equation, supplying
and maintaining the requisite infrastructure, and ensuring investments are matched with
teacher support and other policies aimed at effective ICT use.(16)

Issues and Discussion

Digital culture and digital literacy: Computer technologies and other aspects of digital culture
have changed the ways people live, work, play, and learn, impacting the construction and
distribution of knowledge and power around the world.(14) Graduates who are less familiar with
digital culture are increasingly at a disadvantage in the national and global economy. Digital
literacythe skills of searching for, discerning, and producing information, as well as the critical
use of new media for full participation in societyhas thus become an important consideration
for curriculum frameworks.(8)

In many countries, digital literacy is being built through the incorporation of information and
communication technology (ICT) into schools. Some common educational applications of ICT
include:

One laptop per child: Less expensive laptops have been designed for use in school on a 1:1 basis
with features like lower power consumption, a low cost operating system, and special re-
programming and mesh network functions.(42) Despite efforts to reduce costs, however,
providing one laptop per child may be too costly for some developing countries.(41)

Tablets: Tablets are small personal computers with a touch screen, allowing input without a
keyboard or mouse. Inexpensive learning software (apps) can be downloaded onto tablets,
making them a versatile tool for learning.(7)(25) The most effective apps develop higher order
thinking skills and provide creative and individualized options for students to express their
understandings.(18)

Interactive White Boards or Smart Boards: Interactive white boards allow projected computer
images to be displayed, manipulated, dragged, clicked, or copied.(3) Simultaneously,
handwritten notes can be taken on the board and saved for later use. Interactive white boards
are associated with whole-class instruction rather than student-centred activities.(38) Student
engagement is generally higher when ICT is available for student use throughout the classroom.
(4)

E-readers: E-readers are electronic devices that can hold hundreds of books in digital form, and
they are increasingly utilized in the delivery of reading material.(19) Studentsboth skilled
readers and reluctant readershave had positive responses to the use of e-readers for
independent reading.(22) Features of e-readers that can contribute to positive use include their
portability and long battery life, response to text, and the ability to define unknown words.(22)
Additionally, many classic book titles are available for free in e-book form.

Flipped Classrooms: The flipped classroom model, involving lecture and practice at home via
computer-guided instruction and interactive learning activities in class, can allow for an
expanded curriculum. There is little investigation on the student learning outcomes of flipped
classrooms.(5) Student perceptions about flipped classrooms are mixed, but generally positive,
as they prefer the cooperative learning activities in class over lecture.(5)(35)

ICT and Teacher Professional Development: Teachers need specific professional development
opportunities in order to increase their ability to use ICT for formative learning assessments,
individualized instruction, accessing online resources, and for fostering student interaction and
collaboration.(15) Such training in ICT should positively impact teachers general attitudes
towards ICT in the classroom, but it should also provide specific guidance on ICT teaching and
learning within each discipline. Without this support, teachers tend to use ICT for skill-based
applications, limiting student academic thinking.(32) To support teachers as they change their
teaching, it is also essential for education managers, supervisors, teacher educators, and
decision makers to be trained in ICT use.(11)

Ensuring benefits of ICT investments: To ensure the investments made in ICT benefit students,
additional conditions must be met. School policies need to provide schools with the minimum
acceptable infrastructure for ICT, including stable and affordable internet connectivity and
security measures such as filters and site blockers. Teacher policies need to target basic ICT
literacy skills, ICT use in pedagogical settings, and discipline-specific uses.(21) Successful imple-
mentation of ICT requires integration of ICT in the curriculum. Finally, digital content needs to be
developed in local languages and reflect local culture.(40) Ongoing technical, human, and
organizational supports on all of these issues are needed to ensure access and effective use of
ICT.(21)

Resource Constrained Contexts: The total cost of ICT ownership is considerable: training of
teachers and administrators, connectivity, technical support, and software, amongst others.(42)
When bringing ICT into classrooms, policies should use an incremental pathway, establishing
infrastructure and bringing in sustainable and easily upgradable ICT.(16) Schools in some
countries have begun allowing students to bring their own mobile technology (such as laptop,
tablet, or smartphone) into class rather than providing such tools to all studentsan approach
called Bring Your Own Device.(1)(27)(34) However, not all families can afford devices or service
plans for their children.(30) Schools must ensure all students have equitable access to ICT
devices for learning.

Inclusiveness Considerations

Digital Divide: The digital divide refers to disparities of digital media and internet access both
within and across countries, as well as the gap between people with and without the digital
literacy and skills to utilize media and internet.(23)(26)(31) The digital divide both creates and
reinforces socio-economic inequalities of the worlds poorest people. Policies need to
intentionally bridge this divide to bring media, internet, and digital literacy to all students, not
just those who are easiest to reach.

Minority language groups: Students whose mother tongue is different from the official language
of instruction are less likely to have computers and internet connections at home than students
from the majority. There is also less material available to them online in their own language,
putting them at a disadvantage in comparison to their majority peers who gather information,
prepare talks and papers, and communicate more using ICT.(39) Yet ICT tools can also help
improve the skills of minority language studentsespecially in learning the official language of
instructionthrough features such as automatic speech recognition, the availability of authentic
audio-visual materials, and chat functions.(2)(17)

Students with different styles of learning: ICT can provide diverse options for taking in and
processing information, making sense of ideas, and expressing learning. Over 87% of students
learn best through visual and tactile modalities, and ICT can help these students experience the
information instead of just reading and hearing it.(20)(37) Mobile devices can also offer
programmes (apps) that provide extra support to students with special needs, with features
such as simplified screens and instructions, consistent placement of menus and control features,
graphics combined with text, audio feedback, ability to set pace and level of difficulty,
appropriate and unambiguous feedback, and easy error correction.(24)(29)

https://learningportal.iiep.unesco.org/en/improve-learning/curriculum-materials/appropriate-
educational-technologies

Use of specific ICT tools in education

A Knowledge Map on Information & Communication Technologies in Education

Guiding Questions:

What is known about which ICTs are most useful to benefit education? What do we know about
the usefulness, appropriateness and efficacy of specific ICTs (including radio television, handheld
devices, computers, networked computers and the Internet) for educational purposes? What do
we know about the use of open source and free software in education?

Current knowledgebase

What we know, what we believe -- and what we dont

General

The Internet is not widely available in most LDCs; radio and TV are Broadcast technologies such
as radio and television have a much greater penetration than the Internet throughout much of
the developing world, and the substantial gap is not expected to be closed soon.

Radio and TV can have high start-up costs, and reinforce existing pedagogical styles Educational
initiatives that utilize radio and television typically have quite high initial start-up/capital costs,
but once they are up and running, on-going maintenance and upgrade costs are much lower
(making initiatives utilizing radio and TV for distance learning in the educations sector
particularly appealing for donor support in many cases). One-to-many broadcast technologies
like radio and television (as well as satellite distribution of electronic content) are seen as less
revolutionary ICTs in education, as their usage is seen as reinforcing of traditional instructor-
centric learning models, unlike computers, which many see as important tools in fostering more
learner-centric instructional models.

Radio instruction has been used widely and is reasonably well studied Radio instruction in formal
education has been well studied, especially the links between the use of radio in combination
with school-based educational resources and a variety of pedagogical practices.

TV has been used with success in a few places Television has been utilized successfully as a
mechanism for reaching out-of-school youth in a number of countries, especially in Latin
America and China, and the results of such projects have been widely disseminated.

In some cases, where markets have been liberalized, ICTs are used to distribute educational
content regionally within a country Market liberalization has in many countries allowed for the
development of locally- (as opposed to centrally-) controlled distribution channels that utilize
ICTs (like radio and the Internet, and to a lesser extent television) to create and broadcast
educational content more targeted to the needs of specific communities, and as a result have a
greater flexibility to employ local languages.

CAI is not highly regarded by experts and in OECD countries, but still receives much interest in
LDCs The usefulness of computer-aided instruction (CAI), in which computers are seen as simple
replacements for teachers, has been largely discredited, although there appears to still be great
interest in CAI in many LDCs where computers are being introduced.

It is unclear where to place computers to make sure they are used most efficiently There is very
little research on the most appropriate placement of computers in schools, or in the community,
used to achieve various learning objectives.

Multi-channel learning is a useful concept The emerging practice of multi-channel learning,

which focuses on enriching the educational experience by engaging all resources that are
available to help effect incremental change by coordinating the various ways to connect learners
with information, knowledge, and stimulation, and to mediate those interactions, provides
valuable insight into how blended learning approaches can be delivered and tailored in areas of
great resource scarcity.

Satellite is much hyped, but under-studied While satellite broadcasting of electronic educational
resources is thought to hold much promise, there are few case studies of successful
implementation of satellite broadcasting to small LDCs.

New Internet technologies hold promise, but are not yet operational Emerging Internet
technologies, especially recent and emerging wireless protocols (including 802.11, and shortly
WiMax), are thought to hold much promise for providing connectivity to remoter areas, but
projects utilizing such technologies are for the most part in pilot or planning stages, and face
many regulatory hurdles.

Mobile Internet centres (vans, etc.) are being deployed as a way to reach rural areas A number
of educational initiatives utilizing mobile Internet centres have been piloted in the past decade,
but little cost and impact data has emerged from such projects.

Community telecentres are a hot topic, but successful, replicable models have not yet emerged
Community telecentres (sometimes based in schools) have be touted as important tools to
provide access to learners (including teachers engaged in personal enrichment and professional
development opportunities) to ICTs outside of formal school settings.

The use of handheld devices is just now receiving serious widespread attention Little research
has been done on uses of handheld devices (including personal digital assistants and mobile
phones) in education.

Free software holds promise, but costs and impact are still not well documented The uses of
free software is widely touted as a cost effective alternative to the uses of proprietary software
(especially Microsoft products), but research in this area is largely advocatory in nature.

Comments

General comments

We know that technology changes rapidly and newer, more cost effective and more powerful
technologies will continue to emerge of potential use in education. At the same time, evidence
shows that, once installed in schools, ICTs continue to be used for the life of the functioning life
of the technology, whether or not newer, more cost effective and powerful technologies emerge
(especially as upgrade paths are seldom part of initial planning).

Much of the publicly available information about the effectiveness of particular ICT tools is
generated by the companies who market such products and related services.

Applicability to LDC/EFA context

While it is clear that it is the application of various ICTs that are the most important
determinants of the effectiveness of such tools in education, the choices of tools are quite varied
and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Policymakers and donor staff are often
bombarded by information and studies from vendors on the suitability of their products or
services, and there is a need for further, independent research on the appropriateness on
specific tools with potential to help meet education-related MDGs.
Some areas for further investigation and research

What models exist for the effective utilization of ICTs to support on-going professional
development for educators? What are the best practices for mainstreaming pilot projects
involving interactive radio instruction (IRI) at the Ministry of Education, and how are such
projects managed and maintained over time? Where should computers reside if they are to have
the greatest learning impact in education? Is the use of ICTs as in-class presentation mechanisms
a cost-effective use of technology? How have/can handheld devices (including SMS-enabled
mobile phones) be used to support education (especially related to the professional
development of teachers and school administration), and what are the emerging best practices?
How can existing community and interactive radio networks outside the education sector be
used to benefit education? What successful models exist for opening ICT facilities in schools to
the wider community? Does the use of so-called "open source software" offer compelling
benefits in education? What models exist on effective public-private-community partnerships in
education for ICT equipment provision and maintenance?

http://www.infodev.org/articles/use-specific-ict-tools-education

Web 2.0 refers to World Wide Web websites that emphasize user-generated content, usability
(ease of use, even by non-experts), and interoperability (this means that a website can work well
with other products, systems, and devices) for end users. The term was popularized by Tim
O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty at the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 Conference in late 2004, though it
was coined by Darcy DiNucci in 1999.[1][2][3][4] Web 2.0 does not refer to an update to any
technical specification, but to changes in the way Web pages are designed and used.

A Web 2.0 website may allow users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media
dialogue as creators of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to the first
generation of Web 1.0-era websites where people were limited to the passive viewing of
content. Examples of Web 2.0 features include social networking sites and social media sites
(e.g., Facebook), blogs, wikis, folksonomies ("tagging" keywords on websites and links), video
sharing sites (e.g., YouTube), hosted services, Web applications ("apps"), collaborative
consumption platforms, and mashup applications.

Whether Web 2.0 is substantively different from prior Web technologies has been challenged by
World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, who describes the term as jargon.[5] His original
vision of the Web was "a collaborative medium, a place where we [could] all meet and read and
write."[6][7] On the other hand, the term Semantic Web (sometimes referred to as Web 3.0)[8]
was coined by Berners-Lee to refer to a web of content where the meaning can be processed by
machines.[9
"Web 1.0"[edit]

A diagram showing the milestones in the development of the key layers of the Internet.

Web 1.0 is a retronym referring to the first stage of the World Wide Web's evolution. According
to Cormode, G. and, Krishnamurthy, B. (2008): "content creators were few in Web 1.0 with the
vast majority of users simply acting as consumers of content."[10] Personal web pages were
common, consisting mainly of static pages hosted on ISP-run web servers, or on free web hosting
services such as GeoCities.[11][12] With the advent of Web 2.0, it was more common for the
average web user to have social networking profiles on sites such as Myspace and Facebook, as
well as personal blogs on one of the new low-cost web hosting services or a dedicated blog host
like Blogger or LiveJournal. The content for both was generated dynamically from stored content,
allowing for readers to comment directly on pages in a way that was not previously common.
[citation needed]

Some Web 2.0 capabilities were present in the days of Web 1.0, but they were implemented
differently. For example, a Web 1.0 site may have had a guestbook page to publish visitor
comments, instead of a comment section at the end of each page. Server performance and
bandwidth considerations had to be taken into account, and a long comments thread on each
page could potentially slow down the site. Terry Flew, in his 3rd edition of New Media, described
the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0:

"move from personal websites to blogs and blog site aggregation, from publishing to
participation, from web content as the outcome of large up-front investment to an ongoing and
interactive process, and from content management systems to links based on "tagging" website
content using keywords (folksonomy)".

Flew believed it to be the above factors that form the basic change in trends that resulted in the
onset of the Web 2.0 "craze".[13]

Characteristics[edit]

Some design elements of a Web 1.0 site include:[14]

Static pages instead of dynamic HTML.[15]

Content served from the server's filesystem instead of a relational database management system
(RDBMS).

Pages built using Server Side Includes or Common Gateway Interface (CGI) instead of a web
application written in a dynamic programming language such as Perl, PHP, Python or Ruby.

The use of HTML 3.2-era elements such as frames and tables to position and align elements on a
page. These were often used in combination with spacer GIFs.[citation needed]
Proprietary HTML extensions, such as the <blink> and <marquee> tags, introduced during the
first browser war.

Online guestbooks.

GIF buttons, graphics (typically 88x31 pixels in size) promoting web browsers, operating systems,
text editors and various other products.

HTML forms sent via email. Support for server side scripting was rare on shared servers during
this period. To provide a feedback mechanism for web site visitors, mailto forms were used. A
user would fill in a form, and upon clicking the form's submit button, their email client would
launch and attempt to send an email containing the form's details. The popularity and
complications of the mailto protocol led browser developers to incorporate email clients into
their browsers.[16]

Web 2.0[edit]

The term "Web 2.0" was first used in January 1999 by Darcy DiNucci, an information architecture
consultant. In her article, "Fragmented Future", DiNucci writes:[4]

The Web we know now, which loads into a browser window in essentially static screenfuls, is
only an embryo of the Web to come. The first glimmerings of Web 2.0 are beginning to appear,
and we are just starting to see how that embryo might develop. The Web will be understood not
as screenfuls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether through which
interactivity happens. It will [...] appear on your computer screen, [...] on your TV set [...] your
car dashboard [...] your cell phone [...] hand-held game machines [...] maybe even your
microwave oven.

Writing when Palm Inc. was introducing its first Web-capable personal digital assistant,
supporting Web access with WAP, DiNucci saw the Web "fragmenting" into a future that
extended beyond the browser/PC combination it was identified with. She focused on how the
basic information structure and hyperlinking mechanism introduced by HTTP would be used by a
variety of devices and platforms. As such, her use of the "2.0" designation refers to a next
version of the Web that does not directly relate to the term's current use.[citation needed]

The term Web 2.0 did not resurface until 2002.[17][18][19] These authors focus on the concepts
currently associated with the term where, as Scott Dietzen puts it, "the Web becomes a
universal, standards-based integration platform".[19] In 2004, the term began its rise in
popularity when O'Reilly Media and MediaLive hosted the first Web 2.0 conference. In their
opening remarks, John Battelle and Tim O'Reilly outlined their definition of the "Web as
Platform", where software applications are built upon the Web as opposed to upon the desktop.
The unique aspect of this migration, they argued, is that "customers are building your business
for you".[20] They argued that the activities of users generating content (in the form of ideas,
text, videos, or pictures) could be "harnessed" to create value. O'Reilly and Battelle contrasted
Web 2.0 with what they called "Web 1.0". They associated this term with the business models of
Netscape and the Encyclopdia Britannica Online. For example,

Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship
product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their
dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products. Control
over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in theory, give
Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the
"horseless carriage" framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted
a "webtop" to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information
updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would purchase
Netscape servers.[21]

In short, Netscape focused on creating software, releasing updates and bug fixes, and
distributing it to the end users. O'Reilly contrasted this with Google, a company that did not at
the time focus on producing end-user software, but instead on providing a service based on data
such as the links Web page authors make between sites. Google exploits this user-generated
content to offer Web search based on reputation through its "PageRank" algorithm. Unlike
software, which undergoes scheduled releases, such services are constantly updated, a process
called "the perpetual beta". A similar difference can be seen between the Encyclopdia
Britannica Online and Wikipedia: while the Britannica relies upon experts to write articles and
releases them periodically in publications, Wikipedia relies on trust in (sometimes anonymous)
community members to constantly write and edit content. Wikipedia editors are not required to
have educational credentials, such as degrees, in the subjects in which they are editing.
Wikipedia is not based on subject-matter expertise, but rather on an adaptation of the open
source software adage "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". This maxim is stating that if
enough users are able to look at a software product's code (or a website), then these users will
be able to fix any "bugs" or other problems. Wikipedia's volunteer editor community produces,
edits and updates articles constantly. O'Reilly's Web 2.0 conferences have been held every year
since 2004, attracting entrepreneurs, representatives from large companies, tech experts and
technology reporters.

The popularity of Web 2.0 was acknowledged by 2006 TIME magazine Person of The Year (You).
[22] That is, TIME selected the masses of users who were participating in content creation on
social networks, blogs, wikis, and media sharing sites. In the cover story, Lev Grossman explains:

It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the
cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube
and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and
helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world but also change
the way the world changes.

Characteristics[edit]
A list of ways that people can volunteer to improve Mass Effect Wiki, an example of content
generated by users working collaboratively.

Edit box interface through which anyone could edit a Wikipedia article.

Instead of merely reading a Web 2.0 site, a user is invited to contribute to the site's content by
commenting on published articles or creating a user account or profile on the site, which may
enable increased participation. By increasing emphasis on these already-extant capabilities, they
encourage the user to rely more on their browser for user interface, application software
("apps") and file storage facilities. This has been called "network as platform" computing.[2]
Major features of Web 2.0 include social networking websites, self-publishing platforms (e.g.,
WordPress' easy-to-use blog and website creation tools), "tagging" (which enables users to label
websites, videos or photos in some fashion), "like" buttons (which enable a user to indicate that
they are pleased by online content), and social bookmarking. Users can provide the data that is
on a Web 2.0 site and exercise some control over that data.[2][23] These sites may have an
"architecture of participation" that encourages users to add value to the application as they use
it.[1][2] Users can add value in many ways, such as by commenting on a news story on a news
website, by uploading a relevant photo on a travel website, or by adding a link to a video or TED
talk which is pertinent to the subject being discussed on a website. Some scholars argue that
cloud computing is an example of Web 2.0 because cloud computing is simply an implication of
computing on the Internet.[24]

Web 2.0 offers almost all users the same freedom to contribute.[25] While this opens the
possibility for serious debate and collaboration, it also increases the incidence of "spamming",
"trolling", and can even create a venue for racist hate speech, cyberbullying and defamation. The
impossibility of excluding group members who do not contribute to the provision of goods (i.e.,
to the creation of a user-generated website) from sharing the benefits (of using the website)
gives rise to the possibility that serious members will prefer to withhold their contribution of
effort and "free ride" on the contributions of others.[26] This requires what is sometimes called
radical trust by the management of the Web site. According to Best,[27] the characteristics of
Web 2.0 are: rich user experience, user participation, dynamic content, metadata, Web
standards, and scalability. Further characteristics, such as openness, freedom[28] and collective
intelligence[29] by way of user participation, can also be viewed as essential attributes of Web
2.0. Some websites require users to contribute user-generated content to have access to the
website, to discourage "free riding".

The key features of Web 2.0[30] include:

Folksonomy - free classification of information; allows users to collectively classify and find
information (e.g. "tagging" of websites, images, videos or links)
Rich user experience - dynamic content that is responsive to user input (e.g., a user can "click"
on an image to enlarge it or find out more information)

User participation - information flows two ways between site owner and site users by means of
evaluation, review, and online commenting. Site users also typically create user-generated
content for others to see (e.g., Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that anyone can write articles
for or edit)

Software as a service (SaaS) - Web 2.0 sites developed APIs to allow automated usage, such as by
a Web "app" (software application) or a mashup

Mass participation - near-universal web access leads to differentiation of concerns, from the
traditional Internet user base (who tended to be hackers and computer hobbyists) to a wider
variety of users

Comparison with Web 1.0[edit]

In 2005, Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty held a brainstorming session to elucidate
characteristics and components of the Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 transition and what changed:[31]

This section contains close paraphrasing of one or more non-free copyrighted sources. Ideas in
this article should be expressed in an original manner. More details may be available on the talk
page. (January 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Web 1.0 Web 2.0

Banner ads on websites Automatic text, image, video, and interactive media advertisements,
that are targeted to website content and audience

Ofoto, an online digital photography website, on which users could store, share, view and print
digital photos Flickr, an image hosting and video hosting website and web services suite

content delivery networks (CDN) BitTorrent and eMule, communications protocols of

peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) which is used to distribute data and electronic files over the
Internet

mp3.com, a website providing information about digital music and artists, songs, services,
community, and technologies and a legal, free music-sharing service Napster, a pioneering
peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing Internet service that emphasized sharing digital audio files,
typically songs, encoded in MP3 format

Britannica Online, written by professionals and experts Wikipedia, can be written and edited by
any person, even amateurs and non-experts

personal websites blogging

evite upcoming.org and EVDB

domain name speculation search engine optimization (SEO)

page views cost per click

"screen scraping" web services

publishing of online documents, once approved by gatekeepers and editorial staff mass
user participation, without approval of content by gatekeepers or editorial staff

content management systems wikis that allow almost any users to contribute

directories (taxonomy) "tagging" of websites, images and videos (folksonomy)

"stickiness" syndication

Technologies[edit]

The client-side (Web browser) technologies used in Web 2.0 development include Ajax and
JavaScript frameworks. Ajax programming uses JavaScript and the Document Object Model to
update selected regions of the page area without undergoing a full page reload. To allow users
to continue to interact with the page, communications such as data requests going to the server
are separated from data coming back to the page (asynchronously). Otherwise, the user would
have to routinely wait for the data to come back before they can do anything else on that page,
just as a user has to wait for a page to complete the reload. This also increases overall
performance of the site, as the sending of requests can complete quicker independent of
blocking and queueing required to send data back to the client. The data fetched by an Ajax
request is typically formatted in XML or JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) format, two widely
used structured data formats. Since both of these formats are natively understood by JavaScript,
a programmer can easily use them to transmit structured data in their Web application. When
this data is received via Ajax, the JavaScript program then uses the Document Object Model
(DOM) to dynamically update the Web page based on the new data, allowing for a rapid and
interactive user experience. In short, using these techniques, Web designers can make their
pages function like desktop applications. For example, Google Docs uses this technique to create
a Web-based word processor.

As a widely available plugin independent of W3C standards (the World Wide Web Consortium is
the governing body of Web standards and protocols), Adobe Flash is capable of doing many
things that were not possible pre-HTML5. Of Flash's many capabilities, the most commonly used
is its ability to integrate streaming multimedia into HTML pages. With the introduction of HTML5
in 2010 and growing concerns with Flash's security, the role of Flash is decreasing. In addition to
Flash and Ajax, JavaScript/Ajax frameworks have recently become a very popular means of
creating Web 2.0 sites. At their core, these frameworks use the same technology as JavaScript,
Ajax, and the DOM. However, frameworks smooth over inconsistencies between Web browsers
and extend the functionality available to developers. Many of them also come with
customizable, prefabricated 'widgets' that accomplish such common tasks as picking a date from
a calendar, displaying a data chart, or making a tabbed panel. On the server-side, Web 2.0 uses
many of the same technologies as Web 1.0. Languages such as Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, as well as
Enterprise Java (J2EE) and Microsoft.NET Framework, are used by developers to output data
dynamically using information from files and databases. This allows websites and web services to
share machine readable formats such as XML (Atom, RSS, etc.) and JSON. When data is available
in one of these formats, another website can use it to integrate a portion of that site's
functionality.

Concepts[edit]

Web 2.0 can be described in three parts:

Rich Internet application (RIA) defines the experience brought from desktop to browser,
whether it is "rich" from a graphical point of view or a usability/interactivity or features point of
view.

Web-oriented architecture (WOA) defines how Web 2.0 applications expose their
functionality so that other applications can leverage and integrate the functionality providing a
set of much richer applications. Examples are feeds, RSS feeds, web services, mashups.

Social Web defines how Web 2.0 websites tends to interact much more with the end user and
make the end-user an integral part of the website, either by adding her profile, adding
comments on content, uploading new content, or adding user-generated content (e.g., personal
digital photos).

As such, Web 2.0 draws together the capabilities of client- and server-side software, content
syndication and the use of network protocols. Standards-oriented Web browsers may use plug-
ins and software extensions to handle the content and the user interactions. Web 2.0 sites
provide users with information storage, creation, and dissemination capabilities that were not
possible in the environment now known as "Web 1.0".

Web 2.0 sites include the following features and techniques, referred to as the acronym SLATES
by Andrew McAfee:[32]

Search

Finding information through keyword search.

Links to other websites

Connects information sources together using the model of the Web.

Authoring
The ability to create and update content leads to the collaborative work of many authors. Wiki
users may extend, undo, redo and edit each other's work. Comment systems allow readers to
contribute their viewpoints.

Tags

Categorization of content by users adding "tags" short, usually one-word or two word
descriptions to facilitate searching. For example, a user can tag a metal song as "death metal".
Collections of tags created by many users within a single system may be referred to as
"folksonomies" (i.e., folk taxonomies).

Extensions

Software that makes the Web an application platform as well as a document server. Examples
include Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, ActiveX, Oracle Java, QuickTime, and
Windows Media.

Signals

The use of syndication technology, such as RSS feeds to notify users of content changes.

While SLATES forms the basic framework of Enterprise 2.0, it does not contradict all of the higher
level Web 2.0 design patterns and business models. It includes discussions of self-service IT, the
long tail of enterprise IT demand, and many other consequences of the Web 2.0 era in
enterprise uses.[33]

Usage[edit]

A third important part of Web 2.0 is the social web. The social Web consists of a number of
online tools and platforms where people share their perspectives, opinions, thoughts and
experiences. Web 2.0 applications tend to interact much more with the end user. As such, the
end user is not only a user of the application but also a participant by:

Podcasting

Blogging

Tagging

Curating with RSS

Social bookmarking

Social networking

Social media

Wikis
Web content voting

The popularity of the term Web 2.0, along with the increasing use of blogs, wikis, and social
networking technologies, has led many in academia and business to append a flurry of 2.0's to
existing concepts and fields of study,[34] including Library 2.0, Social Work 2.0,[35] Enterprise
2.0, PR 2.0,[36] Classroom 2.0,[37] Publishing 2.0,[38] Medicine 2.0,[39] Telco 2.0, Travel 2.0,
Government 2.0,[40] and even Porn 2.0.[41] Many of these 2.0s refer to Web 2.0 technologies as
the source of the new version in their respective disciplines and areas. For example, in the Talis
white paper "Library 2.0: The Challenge of Disruptive Innovation", Paul Miller argues

Blogs, wikis and RSS are often held up as exemplary manifestations of Web 2.0. A reader of a
blog or a wiki is provided with tools to add a comment or even, in the case of the wiki, to edit
the content. This is what we call the Read/Write web. Talis believes that Library 2.0 means
harnessing this type of participation so that libraries can benefit from increasingly rich
collaborative cataloging efforts, such as including contributions from partner libraries as well as
adding rich enhancements, such as book jackets or movie files, to records from publishers and
others.[42]

Here, Miller links Web 2.0 technologies and the culture of participation that they engender to
the field of library science, supporting his claim that there is now a "Library 2.0". Many of the
other proponents of new 2.0s mentioned here use similar methods. The meaning of Web 2.0 is
role dependent. For example, some use Web 2.0 to establish and maintain relationships through
social networks, while some marketing managers might use this promising technology to "end-
run traditionally unresponsive I.T. department[s]."[43] There is a debate over the use of Web 2.0
technologies in mainstream education. Issues under consideration include the understanding of
students' different learning modes; the conflicts between ideas entrenched in informal on-line
communities and educational establishments' views on the production and authentication of
'formal' knowledge; and questions about privacy, plagiarism, shared authorship and the
ownership of knowledge and information produced and/or published on line.[44]

Marketing[edit]

Web 2.0 is used by companies, non-profit organizations and governments for interactive
marketing. A growing number of marketers are using Web 2.0 tools to collaborate with
consumers on product development, customer service enhancement, product or service
improvement and promotion. Companies can use Web 2.0 tools to improve collaboration with
both its business partners and consumers. Among other things, company employees have
created wikisWeb sites that allow users to add, delete, and edit content to list answers to
frequently asked questions about each product, and consumers have added significant
contributions. Another marketing Web 2.0 lure is to make sure consumers can use the online
community to network among themselves on topics of their own choosing.[45] Mainstream
media usage of Web 2.0 is increasing. Saturating media hubslike The New York Times, PC
Magazine and Business Week with links to popular new Web sites and services, is critical to
achieving the threshold for mass adoption of those services.[46] User web content can be used
to gauge consumer satisfaction. In a recent article for Bank Technology News, Shane Kite
describes how Citigroup's Global Transaction Services unit monitors social media outlets to
address customer issues and improve products.[47] According to Google Timeline, the term Web
2.0 was discussed and indexed most frequently in 2005, 2007 and 2008. Its average use is
continuously declining by 24% per quarter since April 2008.[citation needed]

Destination Marketing[edit]

In tourism industries, social media is an effective channel to attract travellers and promote the
tourism product and services by engaging with customers. The brand of tourist destinations can
be built through the marketing campaigns on social media by engaging with customers. For
example, the Snow at First Sight campaign launched by the State of Colorado aimed at a brand
awareness of Colorado as a winter destination. The campaign used social media platforms, for
examples, Facebook and Twitter, to promote this competition, and requested the participates to
share experiences, pictures and videos on social medias. As a result, Colorado enhanced the
image of winter destination and a campaign worth was about $2.9 million.[48]

The tourism organisation can earn a brand royalty from interactive marketing campaigns on
social media with engaging passive communication tactics. For example, Moms advisors of the
Walt Disney World are responsibilities for offer suggestions and reply answers about the family
trips at the Walt Disney World. Due to its characteristic of experts in Disney, the Moms was
chosen to represent the campaign.[49] The social networking such as Facebook can be used as a
platform for providing a detailed information about the marketing campaign, as well as real-time
online communication with customers. Korean Airline Tour created and maintained a
relationship with customers by using Facebook for individual communication purposes.[50]

Travel 2.0 refers a model of Web 2.0 on tourism industries which provided virtual travel
communities. Travel 2.0 model allow user to create their own contents and exchange their words
through globally interactive features on websites.[51][52] The users also can contribute their
experiences, images and suggestions regarding their trips on online travel communities. For
example, TripAdvisor is an online travel community which enables user to rate and share
autonomously their reviews and feedbacks on hotels and tourist destinations. Non pre-associate
users can interact socially and discuss through discussion forums on Tripadvior.[53] Social media,
especially Travel 2.0 website, plays a crucial role in decision-making behaviours of travellers. The
user-generated contents on social media tools have a significant impact on travellers choices
and organisation preferences. The travel 2.0 emerged a radical change in receiving information
methods of travellers from business-to-customer marketing into peer-to-peer reviews. The user-
generated contents become a vital tool for helping a number of travellers manage their
international travels for the first time visiting.[54] The travellers tend to trust and rely on peer-
to-peer reviews and virtual communications on social media rather than the information
provided by travel supplier.[53][49] In addition, An autonomous review feature on social media
would help traveller reduce risks and uncertainties before purchasing stages.[51][54] Social
media is also a channel for customer complaints and negative feedbacks which can damage
images of organisations and destinations.[54] For example, a majority of UK travellers read
customer reviews before booking hotels and the bookings of hotels receiving negative feedbacks
would be refrained by half of customers.[54] Therefore, the organisations should develop
strategic plans to handle and manage the negative feedbacks on social media. Although the user-
generated content and rating system on social media are out of business controls, the businesses
can monitor those conversations and participate in communities to enhance a customer loyalty
and maintain customer relationships.[49]

Education[edit]

Web 2.0 could allow for more collaborative education. For example, blogs give students a public
space to interact with one another and the content of the class.[55] Some studies suggest that
Web 2.0 can increase the public's understanding of science, which could improve governments'
policy decisions. A 2012 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison notes that
"...the internet could be a crucial tool in increasing the general publics level of science literacy.
This increase could then lead to better communication between researchers and the public,
more substantive discussion, and more informed policy decision."[56]

Web-based applications and desktops[edit]

Ajax has prompted the development of Web sites that mimic desktop applications, such as word
processing, the spreadsheet, and slide-show presentation. WYSIWYG wiki and blogging sites
replicate many features of PC authoring applications. Several browser-based services have
emerged, including EyeOS[57] and YouOS.(No longer active.)[58] Although named operating
systems, many of these services are application platforms. They mimic the user experience of
desktop operating-systems, offering features and applications similar to a PC environment, and
are able to run within any modern browser. However, these so-called "operating systems" do not
directly control the hardware on the client's computer. Numerous web-based application
services appeared during the dot-com bubble of 19972001 and then vanished, having failed to
gain a critical mass of customers.

Distribution of media[edit]

XML and RSS[edit]

Many regard syndication of site content as a Web 2.0 feature. Syndication uses standardized
protocols to permit end-users to make use of a site's data in another context (such as another
Web site, a browser plugin, or a separate desktop application). Protocols permitting syndication
include RSS (really simple syndication, also known as Web syndication), RDF (as in RSS 1.1), and
Atom, all of which are XML-based formats. Observers have started to refer to these technologies
as Web feeds. Specialized protocols such as FOAF and XFN (both for social networking) extend
the functionality of sites and permit end-users to interact without centralized Web sites.
Web APIs[edit]

Main article: Web API

Web 2.0 often uses machine-based interactions such as REST and SOAP. Servers often expose
proprietary Application programming interfaces (API), but standard APIs (for example, for
posting to a blog or notifying a blog update) have also come into use. Most communications
through APIs involve XML or JSON payloads. REST APIs, through their use of self-descriptive
messages and hypermedia as the engine of application state, should be self-describing once an
entry URI is known. Web Services Description Language (WSDL) is the standard way of publishing
a SOAP Application programming interface and there are a range of Web service specifications.

Criticism[edit]

Critics of the term claim that "Web 2.0" does not represent a new version of the World Wide
Web at all, but merely continues to use so-called "Web 1.0" technologies and concepts.[5] First,
techniques such as Ajax do not replace underlying protocols like HTTP, but add an additional
layer of abstraction on top of them. Second, many of the ideas of Web 2.0 were already featured
in implementations on networked systems well before the term "Web 2.0" emerged.
Amazon.com, for instance, has allowed users to write reviews and consumer guides since its
launch in 1995, in a form of self-publishing. Amazon also opened its API to outside developers in
2002.[59] Previous developments also came from research in computer-supported collaborative
learning and computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) and from established products like
Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino, all phenomena that preceded Web 2.0. Tim Berners-Lee, who
developed the initial technologies of the Web, has been an outspoken critic of the term, while
supporting many of the elements associated with it.[60] In the environment where the Web
originated, each workstation had a dedicated IP address and always-on connection to the
Internet. Sharing a file or publishing a web page was as simple as moving the file into a shared
folder.[61]

Perhaps the most common criticism is that the term is unclear or simply a buzzword. For many
people who work in software, version numbers like 2.0 and 3.0 are for software versioning or
hardware versioning only, and to assign 2.0 arbitrarily to many technologies with a variety of real
version numbers has no meaning. The web does not have a version number. For example, in a
2006 interview with IBM developerWorks podcast editor Scott Laningham, Tim Berners-Lee
described the term "Web 2.0" as a jargon:[5]

"Nobody really knows what it means... If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people
to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along... Web 2.0, for some people,
it means moving some of the thinking [to the] client side, so making it more immediate, but the
idea of the Web as interaction between people is really what the Web is. That was what it was
designed to be... a collaborative space where people can interact."

Other critics labeled Web 2.0 "a second bubble" (referring to the Dot-com bubble of 1997
2000), suggesting that too many Web 2.0 companies attempt to develop the same product with
a lack of business models. For example, The Economist has dubbed the mid- to late-2000s focus
on Web companies as "Bubble 2.0".[62]

In terms of Web 2.0's social impact, critics such as Andrew Keen argue that Web 2.0 has created
a cult of digital narcissism and amateurism, which undermines the notion of expertise by
allowing anybody, anywhere to share and place undue value upon their own opinions about any
subject and post any kind of content, regardless of their actual talent, knowledge, credentials,
biases or possible hidden agendas. Keen's 2007 book, Cult of the Amateur, argues that the core
assumption of Web 2.0, that all opinions and user-generated content are equally valuable and
relevant, is misguided. Additionally, Sunday Times reviewer John Flintoff has characterized Web
2.0 as "creating an endless digital forest of mediocrity: uninformed political commentary,
unseemly home videos, embarrassingly amateurish music, unreadable poems, essays and
novels... [and that Wikipedia is full of] mistakes, half truths and misunderstandings".[63] In a
1994 Wired interview, Steve Jobs, forecasting the future development of the web for personal
publishing, said "The Web is great because that person can't foist anything on you - you have to
go get it. They can make themselves available, but if nobody wants to look at their site, that's
fine. To be honest, most people who have something to say get published now."[64] Michael
Gorman, former president of the American Library Association has been vocal about his
opposition to Web 2.0 due to the lack of expertise that it outwardly claims, though he believes
that there is hope for the future.[65]

"The task before us is to extend into the digital world the virtues of authenticity, expertise, and
scholarly apparatus that have evolved over the 500 years of print, virtues often absent in the
manuscript age that preceded print".

There is also a growing body of critique of Web 2.0 from the perspective of political economy.
Since, as Tim O'Reilly and John Batelle put it, Web 2.0 is based on the "customers... building your
business for you,"[20] critics have argued that sites such as Google, Facebook, YouTube, and
Twitter are exploiting the "free labor"[66] of user-created content.[67] Web 2.0 sites use Terms
of Service agreements to claim perpetual licenses to user-generated content, and they use that
content to create profiles of users to sell to marketers.[68] This is part of increased surveillance
of user activity happening within Web 2.0 sites.[69] Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard's Berkman
Center for the Internet and Society argues that such data can be used by governments who want
to monitor dissident citizens.[70] The rise of AJAX-driven web sites where much of the content
must be rendered on the client has meant that users of older hardware are given worse
performance versus a site purely composed of HTML, where the processing takes place on the
server.[71] Accessibility for disabled or impaired users may also suffer in a Web 2.0 site.[72]

Others have noted that Web 2.0 technologies are tied to particular political ideologies. "Web 2.0
discourse is a conduit for the materialization of neoliberal ideology."Marwick, Alice (2010).
"Status Update: Celebrity, publicity and Self-Branding in Web 2.0" (PDF). The technologies of
Web 2.0 may also "function as a disciplining technology within the framework of a neoliberal
political economy."Jarrett, Kylie (2008). "Interactivity Is Evil! A Critical Investigation of Web 2.0".
First Monday. 13 (3).

Trademark[edit]

In November 2004, CMP Media applied to the USPTO for a service mark on the use of the term
"WEB 2.0" for live events.[73] On the basis of this application, CMP Media sent a cease-and-
desist demand to the Irish non-profit organization IT@Cork on May 24, 2006,[74] but retracted it
two days later.[75] The "WEB 2.0" service mark registration passed final PTO Examining Attorney
review on May 10, 2006, and was registered on June 27, 2006.[73] The European Union
application (which would confer unambiguous status in Ireland)[76] was declined on May 23,
2007.

Extensions of the terminology[edit]

Version numbers[edit]

After the appearance of the term "Web 2.0", a nomenclature appeared to describe the present,
the past and the future of the Web. The uses presented here are not necessarily the only ones.
In addition, for certain numbers uses are very rare (e.g. Web 2.1).[77]

Numbers of existing versions:

Web 0.0 (Already deployed): Ironic term for the development phase preceding the actual
existence of the Web[78], the fact that some people do not have internet or an effect of an
announcement without any content.

Web 0.5: Pleasant term for a website using outdated methods, or internet services deployed
without beaing really ready (especially Web mobile telephony).[79]

Web 1.0: Static Web

Web 1.5: Dynamic Web

Web 2.0: Participatory web, social and collective intelligence. Concept proposed by Tim O'Reilly
in 2005.[80]

Web 2.1: Web 2.0 made it easier to access;[81] expression is mostly a reflection on
improvements of Web 2.0 in the near future.

Web 2.5: For some, it means the Web turned into a platform for online applications.[82] Also
used by the Criteo company for its filtering method of content (Web 2.0 being seen as the
contribution of content without discrimination of participants).

Web 2.B: Web 2.0 oriented to trade; see also business 2.0 and marketing 2.0

Web (Squared - ongoing): The web as an information ecosystem. Concept proposed by Tim
O'Reilly (and John Battelle)[83] as an intermediate stage between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. The
choice of "" (square) means that the web development must be seen as a constant acceleration,
not a linear phenomenon.

Web 3.0: Term for the next major evolution of the Web. Expected as the Semantic Web or Web
data; others think it will be the Web3D. Finally in 2011 Web.3.0 also means the P2P Web from
one computer to another without server).[84]

Web3D: 3D websites; supported by the Web3D Consortium

Web 4.0: For Nova Spivack, owner of Radar Networks, it means the ability to work with tools
online only[85]. For Jol de Rosnay and Seth Godin,[86] it means the symbiotic web used
continuously; without challenging the relevance of this definition, Olivier Ertzscheid think that
Web 4.0 will precede Web 3.0.

Bloggers humorously published articles on what would be Web n.0[87] or use it as the site
name, or simply to mock ads about improvements from one version to the other quite identical.
A start-up announced in a press release a parody on his "discovery" of Web 5.0.[88] The
organizers of a conference on Web 3.0 in April 2007 noted that in search engines were at that
time many answers even for the term "Web 9.0".[89]

Nicholas Carr imagined for its part the evolution of Web 1.0 to Web 5.0 by making the
progression towards a world-against technological utopia.[90]

In a drawing satirizing Web 2.0, Franois Cointe showed Google suggesting Web .0 (of course
the ".0" is not used with the symbol of infinity); on the same drawing, a pipe bore the inscription
"Web 2.0", and he went a bubble 2.0.

Symmetrically, below 1 there are numbers used to discuss the development of the Web. Thus in
the MIT thesis, the term "Web 0.2" is used to designate the first sites, and "Web .9" for dating
sites just before the onset of the digital economy.[91]

Using 2.0[edit]

The ".0" was widely used by allusion. In particular, there is the suffix "2.0" attached to any XXX
concept. In most cases, the concept XXX 2.0 does not necessarily mean a "major update" (the
greatest transformation since its creation, since it get the number 2) of XXX concept, but use of
web 2.0 as part of the XXX concept. A non-exhaustive list of expressions emerged for acceptance
include:

Administration 2.0

Bank 2.0

Business 2.0
Economy 2.0

Enterprise 2.0 (Knowledge Management 2.0)

Government 2.0

HR 2.0

Learning 2.0

Marketing 2.0

Medicine 2.0

Media 2.0

Organization 2.0

Forum 2.0

Violence 2.0

Evil 2.0

Injustice 2.0

Pamphlet 2.0

But there are also uses that have nothing to do with Web 2.0 itself, and just use the fashionable
terminology. A distant example of the original domain is the use of "Depression 2.0" on the
cover of Time (October 13, 2008) to discuss the 2008 financial crisis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0