what makes Web 2.0 applications unique?

1
what makes Web 2.0 applications unique?

• 30 October 2006
• Wesley Willett
• CS260

2
Web 2.0 According to OReilly

• 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

3
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)

4
Drawing on Readings

• Millard, D. E. and Ross, M. 2006. Web 2.0
  Hypertext by Any Other Name?. In HT06.
• Carter, S. 2005. The Role of the Author in
  Topical Blogs. In CHI 2005.
• Walker, J. 2005. Feral Hypertext. In HT05.

5
Disclaimer (2.0)
6
Web 2.0 Hypertext by Any Other Name?
7
Vannevar Bush Memex

• As We May Think - 1945

8
Ted Nelson Hypertext

• 1965

Doug Engelbart oNLine System
Mother of all Demos - 1968
9
Lippman, MIT Aspen Movie Map

• 1st hypermedia system - 1978

10
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.

11
Aspirations of Hypertext Millard Ross
5 major categories

• Search
• Structure
• Adaptive
• Versioning
• Authoring

12
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?

13
Aspirations Search

• Content
• Context
• Structural

14
Web 2.0 Search

• Content Explicit text search (Prevalent in 1.0)

15
Web 2.0 Search

• Context Implicating tags and other metadata
• Structural Not commonly seen. Examples?

16
Aspirations Structure Content

• Typed n-ary links
• Composition
• Extended navigation structures
• User Trails

17
Web 2.0 Structure Content

• Typed n-ary links Only in research systems?

18
Web 2.0 Structure Content

• Composition ex) Flickr photo collections

19
Web 2.0 Structure Content

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

20
Web 2.0 Structure Content

• User Trails ex) Amazon

21
Aspirations Dynamic / Adaptive

• Content
• Structures
• Computation over the network
• Personalization

22
Web 2.0 Dynamic / Adaptive

• Content
• Low-level support with php, javascript, etc.
• Higher-level paradigms like AJAX
• ex) much of the modern web

23
Web 2.0 Dynamic / Adaptive

• Structures ex) Flickr Explore
• ex) Digg Spy

24
Web 2.0 Dynamic / Adaptive

• Computation over the network
• ex) web-based productivity apps.

25
Web 2.0 Dynamic / Adaptive

• Personalization ex) My Yahoo!, Everything!

26
Aspirations Versioning

• Entity
• Network

27
Web 2.0 Versioning

• Entity - Wikis, but not much else.

28
Web 2.0 Versioning

• Network twiki, etc.
• Also, versioning entire apps incrementally
• End of the software release cycle.

29
Aspirations Authoring

• Private Annotation
• Public Annotation
• Global Collaboration
• Restricted Collaboration
• Extensibility

30
Web 2.0 Authoring

• Private Annotation
• ex) primitive blogs, editing basic html

31
Web 2.0 Authoring

• Public Annotation
• ex) blogging comments

32
Web 2.0 Authoring

• Global Collaboration
• ex) review/commendation systems
• ex) Wikipedia

33
Web 2.0 Authoring

• Extensibility Public APIs

http//programmableweb.com/apis
34
How do the Applications Stack Up?
Millard and Ross, HT06
35
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

36
What other aspects of modern web apps arent
covered here?

• Millard Ross only look at Flickr, a few
  wikis/blogs
• What about social networks?
• Doesnt address interface richness

37
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?

38
OReilly 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_o
f_the_game.html
39
OReilly 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_o
f_the_game.html
40
An Exercise
41
An Exercise

• OReillys Hierarchy
• Level 0 Web adds little
• Level 1 Minor benefits
• Level 2 Unique benefits
• Level 3 Could only exist online

• 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

42
Although if we did just want to find out
http//web2.0validator.com
43
Blogs, Wikis, Beyond
44
Blurring the Distinctions Between Authors and
Readers

• Blogging Comments
• Wikis
• Ratings ( meta-ratings)

45
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.

46
Frequency of Link and Quote Sources in Selected
Topical Blogs
Scott Carter,The Role of the Author in Topical
Blogs. HT05
47
Other Models of Accumulating Information

• ex) Wikipedia
• ex)Urban Dictionary

48
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 HypertextWhen Hypertext
Literature Escapes Control. HT05
49
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?