Comments on: More than a Feeling? http://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/more-than-a-feeling/ web 2.0, blogs and social media Mon, 30 May 2011 20:58:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: More of that meme theory by Rickmann Designhttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-10689 More of that meme theory by Rickmann Design Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:35:15 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/12/03/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-10689 [...] and generalist buzzword that doesn’t actually mean very much beyond general impressions. TwoPoinTouch responds that simply because you cannot define something doesn’t mean it isn’t [...] […] and generalist buzzword that doesn’t actually mean very much beyond general impressions. TwoPoinTouch responds that simply because you cannot define something doesn’t mean it isn’t […]

]]> By: Ian Delaneyhttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-5037 Ian Delaney Tue, 05 Dec 2006 23:34:10 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/12/03/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-5037 Mate - you are bang on the money with that comment! Mate — you are bang on the money with that comment!

]]> By: Carlohttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-5031 Carlo Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:11:13 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/12/03/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-5031 Gathering requirements has always impressed me. 9 out of 10 what the customers tell you the first time is not what they really want. But this is a problem of communication. A good "project manager" is capable of understanding the environment that is required, not the one that is perceived. I mostly feel the Web2.0 as a "misperception of the reality" (ok, big big words), because a lot of times I've seen ideas of "My New Web 2.0 Website" becoming a fact of CSS or RSS feeds... those were already present before the coin of the "Magic Word". It seems to me (and I admit being no-one) that this "Web 2.0" is a big light flashed into everyone's eyes. What do you see is only light, but looking long enough in it you can perceive everything! I know I'm a little in contrast with the world of the shiny 2.0, but it seems to me that too many times it is referred to old clothes made new. As for the Media Res... well, what you say is true, and pointing to the politics makes me out of the game :P (allergy?) Cheers! Gathering requirements has always impressed me. 9 out of 10 what the customers tell you the first time is not what they really want. But this is a problem of communication.
A good “project manager” is capable of understanding the environment that is required, not the one that is perceived.
I mostly feel the Web2.0 as a “misperception of the reality” (ok, big big words), because a lot of times I’ve seen ideas of “My New Web 2.0 Website” becoming a fact of CSS or RSS feeds… those were already present before the coin of the “Magic Word”.
It seems to me (and I admit being no-one) that this “Web 2.0″ is a big light flashed into everyone’s eyes. What do you see is only light, but looking long enough in it you can perceive everything!

I know I’m a little in contrast with the world of the shiny 2.0, but it seems to me that too many times it is referred to old clothes made new.

As for the Media Res… well, what you say is true, and pointing to the politics makes me out of the game :P (allergy?)

Cheers!

]]> By: Ian Delaneyhttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-5030 Ian Delaney Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:08:52 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/12/03/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-5030 I'm not sure I believe in 'in media res', otherwise, we'd all vote for the Lib Dems, and that can't be a good thing. I think that the answer is probably in the question, to quote another great sage, Les Dawson on Blankety-Blank. If a client says they want Web 2.0 on their site, then you can take it that they want it to be fresh and exciting, but what do they actually mean in terms of features? Do they want all of it? Or just comments? Or do they just want rounded corners and gradients? I’m not sure I believe in ‘in media res’, otherwise, we’d all vote for the Lib Dems, and that can’t be a good thing.

I think that the answer is probably in the question, to quote another great sage, Les Dawson on Blankety-Blank.

If a client says they want Web 2.0 on their site, then you can take it that they want it to be fresh and exciting, but what do they actually mean in terms of features? Do they want all of it? Or just comments? Or do they just want rounded corners and gradients?

]]> By: Carlohttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-4989 Carlo Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:02:05 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/12/03/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-4989 Ian, being controversial, sometimes, means creating new point of view. Latins said: In Media Res Stat Virtus (The virtues stand in the Middle) and I think that in every discussion, being able to see two opposite points let us feel another one (most of the time in the middle) we didn't see before. From a technical point of view I cannot agree on a too wide definition, because it doesn't give e the boundaries in which I can play my role. Having boundaries is a requirement in order to delivery functionalities, not having it means having the entire sea to search for an answer (without Google). Of course I've played the Devil's Advocate a little bit (sorry for that) but my point is: technology must be driven by targets. In order to have clear targets to reach the foundations for a new technology should be quite clear. I'm looking for a next generation of the web, where the technology should play the Transparent part, but boosting what we really need. I don't want to call it Web3.0, because it would be childish, but thinking about a "Semantic Web" where metadata should be understood by computers and delivered us in the correct way is something great. To do this, in my opinion, we should forgot how the Web2.0 begun, and think about the methodologies we should use. Methodologies, Standards, clear technical rule to make the technology transparent. Carlo Ian,
being controversial, sometimes, means creating new point of view.
Latins said:
In Media Res Stat Virtus (The virtues stand in the Middle) and I think that in every discussion, being able to see two opposite points let us feel another one (most of the time in the middle) we didn’t see before.
From a technical point of view I cannot agree on a too wide definition, because it doesn’t give e the boundaries in which I can play my role. Having boundaries is a requirement in order to delivery functionalities, not having it means having the entire sea to search for an answer (without Google).
Of course I’ve played the Devil’s Advocate a little bit (sorry for that) but my point is: technology must be driven by targets. In order to have clear targets to reach the foundations for a new technology should be quite clear.

I’m looking for a next generation of the web, where the technology should play the Transparent part, but boosting what we really need. I don’t want to call it Web3.0, because it would be childish, but thinking about a “Semantic Web” where metadata should be understood by computers and delivered us in the correct way is something great.
To do this, in my opinion, we should forgot how the Web2.0 begun, and think about the methodologies we should use. Methodologies, Standards, clear technical rule to make the technology transparent.

Carlo

]]> By: Ian Delaneyhttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-4987 Ian Delaney Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:47:00 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/12/03/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-4987 Hi there Carlo. I take your point. It does leave things a bit vague if you agree with the definition I suggest in the last paragraph. Things like AJAX, user content, and functionality are all *separate* technologies, though. You don't have to tick all the boxes to be part of the club. Good point about science vs. philosophy. I was probably trying too hard to be controversial. Hi there Carlo. I take your point. It does leave things a bit vague if you agree with the definition I suggest in the last paragraph. Things like AJAX, user content, and functionality are all *separate* technologies, though. You don’t have to tick all the boxes to be part of the club.

Good point about science vs. philosophy. I was probably trying too hard to be controversial.

]]> By: Carlohttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-4978 Carlo Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:00:44 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/12/03/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-4978 Hi! I feel myself one of those who don't think that calling the Web 2.0 a "Technology" is correct. "Good", "Bad", "Evil" differs from technologies. We should discuss for years about something so evanescent, but what if a customer comes to you saying: I want a new website for my company, and I want it in Web 2.0? Does he wants some ajaxed features? (or does it want to have a good SEO instead?) Does he wants its customer to be able to interact actively with his company? (or simply he wants some new graphics) We should be talking about technology (IMHO) and a technology should be clearly defined! Is CSS2 Web2.0? and HTML? (or only XHTML...) I cannot agree on your point of view, because we are talking about Science, not Philosophy, aren't we? Flexibility, not lack of specifications. PS: and what about the future? The so called Semantic Web everyone is talking about: should it have some strongly defined rules and Standards or not? PS: everything I've written is obviously IMHO!!! Cheers Hi!
I feel myself one of those who don’t think that calling the Web 2.0 a “Technology” is correct.
“Good”, “Bad”, “Evil” differs from technologies. We should discuss for years about something so evanescent, but what if a customer comes to you saying: I want a new website for my company, and I want it in Web 2.0?
Does he wants some ajaxed features? (or does it want to have a good SEO instead?)
Does he wants its customer to be able to interact actively with his company? (or simply he wants some new graphics)

We should be talking about technology (IMHO) and a technology should be clearly defined!
Is CSS2 Web2.0? and HTML? (or only XHTML…)

I cannot agree on your point of view, because we are talking about Science, not Philosophy, aren’t we?

Flexibility, not lack of specifications.

PS: and what about the future? The so called Semantic Web everyone is talking about: should it have some strongly defined rules and Standards or not?

PS: everything I’ve written is obviously IMHO!!!

Cheers

]]> By: Comedy Kinghttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-4747 Comedy King Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:59:04 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/12/03/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-4747 Who cares what it is exactly, what interests me most is that Web 20 applications may just put the BIG BOYS out of business as Web 2.0 software runs from a web site without any install. Also most web based apps are free to use. There's a Web 2.0 search engine @ <a href="http://www.web20searchengine.com" rel="nofollow"> http://www.web20searchengine.com </a> :) Who cares what it is exactly, what interests me most is that Web 20 applications may just put the BIG BOYS out of business as Web 2.0 software runs from a web site without any install. Also most web based apps are free to use.

There’s a Web 2.0 search engine @ http://www.web20searchengine.com :)

]]> By: Rickmann Design Perspectives » Blog Archive » More of that meme theoryhttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-4741 Rickmann Design Perspectives » Blog Archive » More of that meme theory Sun, 03 Dec 2006 19:19:27 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/12/03/more-than-a-feeling/#comment-4741 [...] I have been reading a discussion about trying to define Web 2.0. Nick at Rough Type makes the point that Web 2.0 is useless for specialists as it doesn’t define anything; it is a vague and generalist buzzword that doesn’t actually mean very much beyond general impressions. TwoPoinTOuch responds that simply because you cannot define something doesn’t mean it isn’t there. [...] […] I have been reading a discussion about trying to define Web 2.0. Nick at Rough Type makes the point that Web 2.0 is useless for specialists as it doesn’t define anything; it is a vague and generalist buzzword that doesn’t actually mean very much beyond general impressions. TwoPoinTOuch responds that simply because you cannot define something doesn’t mean it isn’t there. […]

]]>