over the past two weeks or so, i've been trying to catch up on emerging technologies for the web. some, like technorati, i've been a part of for a while, while others i'm still trying to see the point in...take del.icio.us, for example. for my use, i don't see the big deal...it's just a mess of links that i don't want to visit. sure, i can set up my own list and share it for all to see, but what's the point?
the links i include in any post are ones that i thought were interesting, so i put them on my page for others to check out. if i were to use del.icio.us, i'd first accrue my links and add them to del.icio.us. next, i'd link to the del.icio.us links from my page...it just seems like a roundabout way to go about things. my mind tends to not work that way. i read some information and my mind absorbs it. i process what i need from it and if i want others to hear about it, i post about it. if there's nothing i want to pass on, then i forget about it. social bookmarking seems to create a lot of garbage to wade through.
i'm not here to discount del.icio.us by any means. in fact, i'm going to start using it to see if i can find the merit that everyone else seems to have done. no, friends, today's topic is semantics, but the above paragraphs do tie in. you see, there's an idea floating around the internets called web 2.0. there's a new version of the web coming, what's so wrong with that? nothing, if that was the actual truth.
in researching just what the hell web 2.0 actually is, i stumbled across some good articles. first, from wikipedia: web 2.0 "refers to a second generation of services available on the World Wide Web that lets people collaborate, and share information online." the difference between the old web and web 2.0 is that websites are less stand-alone and more community-oriented. they also group technologies such as social bookmarking, syndication, wikis, standardized xhtml and css, and blogs in general under the web 2.0 caveat. the problem i have, and russell shaw hits on it exactly in his zdnet blog, is that this coming change is not universal or uniform. it's not even accepted by the majority of web users and developers. i think most people are just thinking that it's neat stuff, nothing more than a novelty. the only thing on this subject i hope to be a novelty is calling it web 2.0, just move away from that stigma. it was arbitrarily decided as the name and it's nothing more than a marketing term/slogan.
according to shaw, "The problem I have with this "Web 2.0" slogan is that it is a contrivance, meant to imply a unified movement or wave toward a better Web. Just the very numbering of the thing brings out my moo-goo detector: 1.0 sounds like a beginning. 2.0 (as opposed to a tenth-decimal, such as 1.7 or a 2.4 implies - by its very roundness, a coordinated, standards-based, like-minded rebirth, reconstruction, renaissance, resurrection, whatever you want to call it."
that's my exact sentiment...it kinda reminds me of the extreme programming craze or DHTML. neither terms held much worth in my opinion, especially the latter. coming up with an acronym similar to an already established developmental language, but not being a language in its own right just seemed ridiculous. DHTML, or dynamic HTML, just meant creating websites with CSS, DOM, and regular old HTML. nothing special there. i always found it humorous when i'd see someone's resume and, besides listing knowledge of HTML and CSS, the person would list DHTML like it was different.
so anyway, the idea is quite sound, but i don't think it's nearly as revolutionary as the hype states. i look at it as more useful applications for internet communications, but not a whole new web. i like technorati now that i've taken the time to see its offerings. same with del.icio.us. i'm looking into flickr and youtube (the latter especially for the videos i hoard).
i have quite a few topics on my mind, so i may be dumping brain contents all over this site...then again, laziness may win out. stay tuned - upcoming = grandia 2, honey, the forgotten, henry rollins, david bowie, more web technology, nextwave, comic books, and most likely more. out.
i posted this over at GamesAreFun, so i'm just repeating here: the Video Game Voters Network.
from their site: "The Network opposes efforts to regulate the content of entertainment media, including proposals to criminalize the sale of certain games to minors, or regulate video games differently from movies, music, books, and other media. The Network also enables gamers to stay educated about issues, reach out to federal, state, and local officials, and register to vote. The Video Game Voters Network is a project sponsored by the Entertainment Software Association, a trade group representing America's video game publishers."
interesting to say the least. i've signed up just to sate my curiosity. out.