what makes Web 2.0 applications unique?

transcript

30 October 2006Wesley Willett

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 continually-updated 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 | MemexAs We May Think - 1945

Ted Nelson | “Hypertext” 1965

Doug Engelbart | oNLine System“Mother of all Demos” - 1968

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

SearchStructureAdaptive

VersioningAuthoring

5 major categories

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?

• Composition: ex) Flickr photo collections

• Extended navigation structures: ex) last.fm Tag Radio

• 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

• Structures: ex) Flickr Explore

ex) Digg Spy

• Computation over the network: ex) web-based productivity

• 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

Millard and Ross, HT06

How do the Applications Stack Up?

Which of these aspirations do Web 2.0 apps fulfill?

Content Search Context Search

Structural SearchTyped 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_game.html

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_game.html

An Exercise

• Millard & Ross’ Ideals– Search

• Content, Context, Structure– Structure

• Composition, Navigation Structures, User Trails

– Adaptive/Dynamic• Dynamic Content & Structures,

Computation over the Network, Personalization

– Versioning• Entity, Network

– Authoring• Private, Public, Collaboration,

Extensibility

• O’Reilly’s Hierarchy– Level 0: Web adds little– Level 1: Minor benefits– Level 2: Unique

benefits– Level 3: Could only

exist online

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

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?

what makes Web 2.0 applications unique?

Documents