Sixteen Ways of Thinking in Web 2.0 @ SYS-CON AUSTRALIA

Sixteen Ways of Thinking in Web 2.0

With apologies to Bruce Eckel, I sat down this afternoon and put together a draft list of the first-order elements of Web 2.0 thinking. It's not that I have the hubris to consider this list official in any way but it should be a serviceable starting point for debate, discourse, and reference. I'd also like to give credit to Jeremy Zawodny for his write-up pointing me to Tom Coat's excellent presentation notes from his Future of Web Apps talk which partially inspired this effort. I think both of them have really solid source material. But they still don't quite capture a complete high-level picture of the ingredients, forces, and decisions that have to go into thinking about, using, and building complete Web 2.0 software experiences.

Reader Feedback : Page 1 of 1

#6	Yagiz Erkan commented on the 3 Mar 2006 > I see Web 2.0 as a more human version of the internet sigh Everyone has a different opinion about it. It looks like it's the name that we put on the things that we can't really explain...
#5	Servant of Chaos commented on the 2 Mar 2006 Trackback Added: Lessons from the Web 2.0 Software Thinking; There are many lessons that marketers could learn by understanding the approach that software engineers take when dealing with Web 2.0 projects. I found this great link on PR Machine that leads to the Australian site of Dion Hinchcliffe. In
#4	Servant of Chaos commented on the 2 Mar 2006 I see Web 2.0 as a more human version of the internet - complete with surprises, unexpected turns and unintended collaborations. Great summary of some of the thinking required to understand the potential of Web 2.0.
#3	Yagiz Erkan commented on the 1 Mar 2006 > Of course, Web 2.0 is an extremely large and involved topic and no one could possibly > list all the importants Web 2.0 ideas and ways to think about it. That's why Web 2.0 makes no-sense at all. It is a bag of unralated concepts. Just because someone wants to make them his and put a general label on them, doesn't make them related. And, be honest and show the other side of the industry as well. The companies that tried to create what you call Web 2.0 software and failed. Or is success a prerequisite to Web 2.0. It's too easy to finger point Google this and Google that. It's too easy to say, "this is a successful application therefore it's Web 2.0". Web 2.0 is the worst hype-driven thing I've ever seen. We, developers, should continue to do AJAX development or service orientation or blogging without calling them "Web 2.0" because they already have names.
#2	dave commented on the 27 Feb 2006 does anyone else see the inherent contradictions of numbers 4 and 16?
#1	SYS-CON Australia News Desk commented on the 26 Feb 2006 With apologies to Bruce Eckel, I sat down this afternoon and put together a draft list of the first-order elements of Web 2.0 thinking. It's not that I have the hubris to consider this list official in any way but it should be a serviceable starting point for debate, discourse, and reference. I'd also like to give credit to Jeremy Zawodny for his write-up pointing me to Tom Coat's excellent presentation notes from his Future of Web Apps talk which partially inspired this effort. I think both of them have really solid source material. But they still don't quite capture a complete high-level picture of the ingredients, forces, and decisions that have to go into thinking about, using, and building complete Web 2.0 software experiences.