what makes Web 2.0 applications unique

what makes Web 2.0 applications unique? 30 October 2006 Wesley Willett CS260 Web 2.0 According to O‟Reilly • “Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continuallyupdated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an "architecture of participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.” - Tim O'Reilly October 01, 2005 Outline • From Early Hypertext to Web 2.0 – Implementing aspirations of hypertext pioneers – What “2.0” adds that “1.0” lacked – A group discussion exercise • Authorship and Information Aggregation in Blogs, Wikis, and Beyond (time permitting) Drawing on Readings • Millard, D. E. and Ross, M. 2006. Web 2.0: Hypertext by Any Other Name?. In HT‟06. • Carter, S. 2005. The Role of the Author in Topical Blogs. In CHI 2005. • Walker, J. 2005. Feral Hypertext. In HT‟05. Disclaimer (2.0) Web 2.0: Hypertext by Any Other Name? Vannevar Bush | Memex As We May Think - 1945 Ted Nelson | “Hypertext” 1965 Doug Engelbart | oNLine Systemall Demos” - 1968 “Mother of Lippman, MIT | Aspen Movie Map1st hypermedia system 1978 Vision of hypertext/hypermedia • A non-linear medium of information • Not just the WWW • To look at: – How well do “Web 2.0” systems implement/refine “ideal” hypertext/hypermedia models? – How are they better than “Web 1.0”? – An interesting lens through which to examine what makes these new systems unique, useful. Aspirations of Hypertext | Millard & Ross 5 major categories Search Structure Adaptive Versioning Authoring Aspirations of Hypertext | Millard & Ross As we step through: • What systems realize these aspirations? • How well do they do so? • What are the implications for how we use these systems? Aspirations | Search • Content • Context • Structural Web 2.0 | Search • Content: Explicit text search (Prevalent in 1.0) Web 2.0 | Search • Context: Implicating tags and other metadata • Structural: Not commonly seen. Examples? Aspirations | Structure & Content • • • • Typed n-ary links Composition Extended navigation structures User Trails Web 2.0 | Structure & Content • Typed n-ary links: Only in research systems? Web 2.0 | Structure & Content • Composition: ex) Flickr photo collections Web 2.0 | Structure & Content • Extended navigation structures: ex) last.fm Tag Radio Web 2.0 | Structure & Content • User Trails: ex) Amazon Aspirations | Dynamic / Adaptive • • • • Content Structures Computation over the network Personalization Web 2.0 | Dynamic / Adaptive • Content: – Low-level support with php, javascript, etc. – Higher-level paradigms like AJAX – ex) much of the modern web Web 2.0 | Dynamic / Adaptive • Structures: ex) Flickr Explore ex) Digg Spy Web 2.0 | Dynamic / Adaptive • Computation over the network: ex) web-based productivity apps. Web 2.0 | Dynamic / Adaptive • Personalization: ex) My Yahoo!, Everything! Aspirations | Versioning • Entity • Network Web 2.0 | Versioning • Entity - Wikis, but not much else. Web 2.0 | Versioning • Network: twiki, etc. Also, versioning entire apps incrementally – “End of the software release cycle.” Aspirations | Authoring • • • • • Private Annotation Public Annotation Global Collaboration Restricted Collaboration Extensibility Web 2.0 | Authoring • Private Annotation: ex) primitive blogs, editing basic html Web 2.0 | Authoring • Public Annotation: ex) blogging + comments Web 2.0 | Authoring • Global Collaboration: ex) review/commendation systems ex) Wikipedia Web 2.0 | Authoring • Extensibility: Public APIs http://programmableweb.com/apis How do the Applications Stack Up? Millard and Ross, Which of these aspirations do Web 2.0 apps fulfill?  Content Search  Context Search Structural Search Typed n-ary links  Composition  Extending Navigation Structures  User Trails  Dynamic Content  Dynamic Structures  Computation over Network  Personalization  Versioning  Private Annotations  Public Annotations  Restricted Collaboration  Global Collaboration  Extensibility What other aspects of modern web apps aren‟t covered here? • Millard & Ross only look at Flickr, a few wikis/blogs • What about social networks? • Doesn‟t address interface richness Some Questions • Which of these aspirations do specific web apps fulfill? • How much of this is application dependent? – Are some of Millard & Ross‟ ideals not useful or practical for many systems? • Are these attributes useful criteria to consider when classifying, analyzing, and designing web applications? O‟Reilly | Classifying Web 2.0 Apps • Another very different way of grouping these applications. • “A hierarchy of „Web 2.0-ness‟.” http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/07/levels_of_the_gam O‟Reilly | Classifying Web 2.0 Apps • Level 0: App would work as well offline from a local data cache – ex) MapQuest • Level 1: App can and does exist offline, but gains features online – ex) Writely • Level 2: App could exist offline, but uniquely benefits by being online – ex) Flickr • Level 3: App could only exist on the net – ex) Craigslist http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/07/levels_of_the_gam An Exercise An Exercise • Millard & Ross‟ Ideals – Search • Content, Context, Structure • O‟Reilly‟s Hierarchy – – – – Level 0: Web adds little Level 1: Minor benefits Level 2: Unique benefits Level 3: Could only exist online – Structure • Composition, Navigation Structures, User Trails – Adaptive/Dynamic • Dynamic Content & Structures, Computation over the Network, Personalization – Versioning • Entity, Network – Authoring • Private, Public, Collaboration, Extensibility Although if we did just want to find out… http://web2.0validator.com Blogs, Wikis, & Beyond Blurring the Distinctions Between Authors and Readers • Blogging & Comments • Wikis • Ratings (& meta-ratings) Blogs | Accumulating and Digesting Information • Information from a variety of sources. - Posts reference other blogs, outside sources, and introduce new material. - Multiple authors create and digest content and structure through posts, links, and comments. - Success, conflict resolution largely gauged via popularity and stickiness of the content. Frequency of Link and Quote Sources in Selected Topical Blogs Scott Carter,The Role of the Author in Topical Blogs. HT‟05 Other Models of Accumulating Information ex) Wikipedia ex)Urban Dictionary Jill Walker | Feral Hypertext • “Massive possibility for collaboration and emergence in the network creates truly feral and uncontrollable hypertext.” – Wikipedia, Flickr, CiteULike, del.icio.us as examples of feral structures. – Important to consider how to make them navigable. Jill Walker, Feral Hypertext:When Hypertext Literature Escapes Control. HT‟05 A Few Final Questions • How successful are these systems at creating and structuring content? • What are the implications of multiple authorship? • How do we design web interaction to better facilitate/convey it?