Thursday, March 26, 2009

Web 2.0 Explained

Some great links on the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 and a discussion follows.

I really liked the way this video captured the essence of Web 2.0.

Two sites mentioned really stood out for me and I was wondering if any of you have experiencing using these and would please comment on your thoughts. They are Zoho - sounds sort of like a competitor to Google Docs with more features, and Jooce - described as taking your desktop with you but doesn't really take all your files with you - only those that you choose to make mobile.

A graphic representation of Web 2.0 - Does a good job of representing what the video explains but in a neat little picture.

Differences between Web 1.0 and 2.0 - Blog by Advergirl.
I liked the concept of the examples from Advergirl but I have to say that I think some explanations would have helped her case. I did quite see how some of her examples demonstrated the difference in Web 2.0 vs. Web 1.0. For example:

  1. Finding information to making connections. In this one, it's very clear. Switchboard is a lookup service, Linkedin/Facebook connects friends or other contacts and Prosper (pretty cool,BTW) connects unknown people together for mutual benefit.
  2. Directed behavior to finding by browsing. Not sure I get this one. How does the Barnes and Noble or HomeDepot site differ from Crate and Barrel?
  3. Answers to Connecting to Support. Again, how does RevolutionHealth differ from WebMD? I get that SisterWoman is supposed to be like getting advice from friends with specialities. Think Lifeline.
  4. Value Propositions to Simple Value. I would have liked to see some explanation for the examples chosen in this category.
  5. Reading to Writing. Wasn't sure I get this one at all. Hill and Knowlton seem like a consolidation site of different articles, but I'm still confused about what Squidoo is all about (even though I have a Lens) and how does FoodTV have anything to do with reading?
  6. Accessible to Personal. Again, not sure I see the connections between this category and the examples. Also, NewsGator seems like a brand, not raw and how is Firefox or Target personal?
  7. Expert voice to peer credibility. How is NY Times "peer credible"? It's certainly not in the same way that Yelp or Digg are.
  8. You to Me. I get that Kashi is trying to get user participation though I'm not sure MySpace fits as a good example for raw.
  9. Content to Multimedia. Like she starts, she ends with a good example. About is static content, YouTube is peer videos and Chow is the brand including videos on how to cook, etc...

Barring my critique of Advergirl, I do believe concepts such as "personal" and "peer credible" are representative of what we mean by Web 2.0. However, I think there may be better examples that the ones provided. I also think we have to include concepts such as "collaboration", "participation" and "sharing".

From the perspective of educators, Web 2.0 does expose completely new challenges for teaching and yet, I would argue, also opens up entirely new and exciting opportunities for teaching.

1 comment:

sloperaly said...

I loved this article but I do agree she could have put some of her own thoughts into it...though its made to get us to think... For instance, As far as the B and N site I think the difference it has to the other two are that they are standard 'shopping cart' sites- home depot if they chose to could add the interactivity that B and N has with its editorial reviews (canned) alongside reader reviews...thus the 2.0 part of the site- There are sites like that sell electronics and the like and also allow the user to discuss their favorite and not so favorite things about the product. My assumption is that since Home Depot has lots of dealerships they dont want to make enemies of someone who writes bad things about their GE refrigerator?

Your thoughts?