When Dale Dougherty of O’Reilly Media coin the full term " Web 2.0 , " he probably did n’t have intercourse he was stirring up a hornets ' nest . He was trying to come up with a catchy name for an net conference , but the full term caught on , with some hoi polloi using it beyond its original function . Ever since the phrase " Web 2.0 " gained adhesive friction , people have debated what " connection 1.0 " must ’ve been about .
The number 2.0 suggested that this was a new version of the World Wide web . If Web 2.0 was veridical , what was internet 1.0 ? Are there still web page on theinternetthat fall into the Web 1.0 classification ? In this clause , we ’ll use O’Reilly ’s definition of Web 2.0 to figure out what Web 1.0 mean value , and if there are any last remnants of it online .
Have Web Browser Technologies Advanced That Much?
Tim O’Reilly , beginner and chief operating officer of O’Reilly Media , take away a thrust at define World Wide Web 2.0 more than a class after the first Web 2.0 league . He posted an explanation on hisblogthat spanned five Thomas Nelson Page of text and used a caboodle of marketing terms and jargon . Some mass might find O’Reilly ’s explanation more confusing than helpful , but his main item was that Web 2.0 refers to people make up connections with other people through the web , as they do onsocial networkingwebsites likeFacebook .
It ’s hard to define Web 1.0 for several reasons . First , Web 2.0 does n’t touch on to a specific rise in connection technology . alternatively , World Wide Web 2.0 refer to a circle of technique forwebpagedesign and execution . Second , some of these technique have been around since the World broad Web first launched , so it ’s impossible to separate vane 1.0 and Web 2.0 in a time line . The definition of entanglement 1.0 wholly look upon the definition of entanglement 2.0 .
Attributes of Web 1.0 Pages
With that in mind , if entanglement 2.0 is a assemblage of approaches that are the most effective on the World Wide internet , then internet 1.0 include everything else . As for what it mean to be " effective , " Tim O’Reilly says that it ’s furnish drug user with an piquant experience so that they ’ll need to return to the web page in the future .
Here ’s a assembling of strategies O’Reilly considers to be part of the Web 1.0 doctrine :
Web 1.0 Sites Have Static Content
Static World Wide Web page contain information that might be useful , but there ’s no reason for a visitant to return to the site later . An exercise might be a personal site that gives information about the site ’s owner , but never exchange . A entanglement 2.0 variation might be a web log or social media report that proprietor can frequently update .
Web 1.0 Sites Aren’t Interactive
visitor can only confabulate these sites ; they ca n’t impact or contribute to the sites . Most organizations have visibility pages that visitor can reckon at but not encroachment or change , whereas awikiis a participative social web , admit anyone to visit and make change .
Web 1.0 Applications Are Proprietary
Under the Web 1.0 philosophy , companies develop software software that user can download , but they ca n’t see how the software function or change it . A Web 2.0 app is anopen sourceprogram , which imply the source codification for the program is freely available . user can see how the program ferment and make limiting or even build new applications found on early programs .
For example , Netscape Navigatorwas a proprietary web internet browser of the Web 1.0 era . Firefoxfollows the Web 2.0 philosophical system and provides developer with all the peter they demand to make new Firefox diligence .
Is it always a spoilt idea to take a Web 1.0 approach in internet design ? find oneself out on the next varlet .
When Web 1.0 is Right
If web 2.0 is a solicitation of the most in effect ways to create and use web pages , is there any reason to make a page that follow the Web 1.0 model ? It may voice surprising , but the solvent is in reality yes . There are time when a Web 1.0 glide slope is appropriate .
Amazon’s User Input
Part of the World Wide Web 2.0 school of thought is creating a webpage that visitors can impact or alter . For case , Amazonallows visitors to place product limited review . next visitors will have a chance to understand these reviews , which might influence their determination to buy the product . The power to contribute information is helpful .
However , in some case , the webmaster would n’t need drug user to be able to impact the webpage . A restaurant might have a webpage that shows the current menu . While the computer menu might evolve over time , the webmaster would n’t want visitors to be able-bodied to make changes . The computer menu ’s purpose is to let mass know what the restaurant serves ; it ’s not the right-hand seat for commentary or reviews .
Wikipedia’s Dynamic Content
Another deterrent example of a good Web 1.0 approach is information resources . Wikipediais an online cyclopaedia resource that provide visitors to make changes to most articles . Ideally , with enough people contributing to Wikipedia entries , the most accurate and relevant info about every discipline will eventually be part of each article .
unluckily , because anyone can change entry , it ’s potential for someone to post delusive or misleading entropy . hoi polloi can purposefully or unwittingly damage an article ’s credibility by bestow inaccurate facts . While moderator do patrol the Thomas Nelson Page for these act of vandalism , there ’s no guarantee that the info on an submission will be accurate on any given day .
Objective Information Sharing
On the impudent side of the coin are prescribed cyclopedia . Encyclopedia unveiling are fact - checker , edit and attributed to a specific author or entity . The process of creating an encyclopedia article is very structured . Perhaps most importantly , there is a tension on objectiveness .
The writer of an encyclopedia ledger entry must introduce fact without being subjective ; a person pee-pee an edit to a Wikipedia clause could have a personal agenda and as a issue hide certain fact or bring out false information . While Wikipedia can be a well startle piazza to find data about most subjects , it ’s almost always a defective mind to use it as your lone source of info .
The Web Evolution Continues
The bound between what reckon as Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 is getting decipherable . As more web technology develop around the goals of interactivity and gaining adhesive friction over search engine , the digital reality of WWW 1.0 is disappearing .
There ’s no denying that some internet strategies are more effective than others . In the closing , whether or not there ’s such a thing as entanglement 1.0 is a moot point . The important thing is to learn how to use the web to its full potential drop .
To learn more about the World Wide Web and other topics , check out the links on the following pageboy .
