what makes

Web 2.0

30 October 2006 Wesley Willett CS260

applications unique?

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

• 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 System all Demos” - 1 “Mother of

1st hypermedia system - 1978

Lippman, MIT | Aspen Movie Map

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/api s

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’.”


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


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?