Coined (in what seems to be) all those years ago now, in 2005, the phrase ‘Web 2.0′ or ‘Web 2′ for short, is used to define a shift in progression in the web. More importantly, a ‘second-generation’ of Berners-Lee’s World Wide Web leaning towards the way in which websites are designed and developed. Sure, that sounds easy enough to digest – right? The result of the juxtaposition of ‘Web generations’ occurs when we realize that the whole Web 2 idea is a lot more than ‘The web on steroids’ or ‘The Web’s very tech-savvy son’.

In theory, the power of Web 2.0 lies in the fact that a true Web 2.0-built website should, by all means, allow users to do more than just retrieve information. Gone are the days when clicking on a link and reading a blog post was considered highly-enthralling (don’t get me wrong – I love blogging!). These days, with the shift in thought surrounding website design from basic ‘static websites’ to ‘Web 2.0 portals’, we are expecting a lot more.Not only should the site offer you information – hell, we have Web 2 now! It should interact with you; the avid viewer, and more importantly change how you think websites should work. ‘Make the font bigger or smaller’, ‘move sections of the site you commonly use above the fold of the page’ (and have it remember your settings when you come back next time!), ‘access information on the fly without reloading the page’ – all appropriate and able to be done through Web 2 and it’s related technologies.

So we have jumped onto a greater topic of interest now in ‘Web 2.0 technologies’. I mean what is a web buzzword if it isn’t attached to countless other buzzwords anyway? Web 2.0 would really just be a buzzword if it weren’t for all its underlying technologies, discussed below.

The list begins with our good friend Ajax; a mix of JavaScript and XML, which allows web developers to asynchronously talk (exchange information) with databases (website backend’s) without making the user leave or reload the page. Imagine this, in a galaxy not too far away, you are browsing through a website loaded with information. You click on a side-link to a sub-page, and bang! Nothing has changed! The website still looks exactly the same; the header, footer, side-navigation and website address (if the developer intended so) are all still as you had left them – but one thing has changed; the content you requested has been pulled out from the database through XML and JavaScript and is now displayed right before your eyes where the previous content was. Cool! (or is it Uber?).

Adding to the list we started is Rich Internet Applications, affectionately known as R-I-A’s in the web industry (and by no means not the Recording Industry Association of America!). Rich Internet Applications, are collectively classed as web applications that have the features and functionality of traditional desktop applications. RIA’s can be made using a mix of current web technologies like Adobe Flash, Adobe Flex, Adobe AIR, and/or Microsoft‘s brainchild, Silverlight – a subset of Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF).

Simple and sweet, right? In essence, a RI application would present the user with the ability to perform those functions which said user is accustom to due to having those features present on a desktop personal computer or a laptop.

Some functions Rich Internet Applications share with many desktop applications may include:

1. Drag and drop
2. Alerts (live or delayed)
3. Window resizing
4. Minimizing of windows/pop-ups
5. No page refreshing

By doing many of the above, Rich Internet Applications help the user to feel as though they are working in a desktop-like environment; thus making it intuitive or easy to use. Many of the modules/options you could expect to find in such applications ‘mimic’ or use same functionality as other prominent software such as the Microsoft Office suite or Microsoft Outlook which take a user-centered approach to their design philosophy.

So there you have it, a dirty-quick yet fulfilling, informative introduction to what Web 2.0 is. Stay tuned for more articles, including a guide to Web 2.0 website design as well as an early look at Web 3! Yes, you read that right! Subscribe to the RSS feed for more.

I know it’s a little bit belated now, but Happy New Year to you all!

I’ve never been against the quest for knowledge – in fact, knowledge is power — and, somehow when you look at the results of the survey there are quite a few interesting tidbits that make you realise just why it has taken commissioned statisticians Alan Brickman and Larry Yu (yes, you read that right! No junior data analysts making $25/hour here) more than 180 days to “translate raw data into meaningful findings (A List Apart)”

From questions like ‘Where do you work?’ drawring interesting conclusions such as ‘hours worked by organisation type’, there is a heck of a LOT of data mining that can go on. For instance, if you look at some of the results, you will find some interesting links such as ‘the higher a salary, the more likely the respondent took part in formal training’ (page 73).



This however raises questions… Notably, did ‘sir’ get training on the job, because of his relatively high salary? or as discussed in the survey results, did sir earn more because of the formal training? Questions like this are important to look at in order to get an objective opinion – however, there are only 37 questions and with 32,000 people responding, you’d think the questions would be less next year as opposed to more – or? Guess we’ll have to wait and see.

If nothing else, anyone who knows me will know that I am a BIG Mac fanboy.. Just an FYI: The document, as well as the graphs were made on a Mac – specificially in ‘Numbers‘. Figures were transferred over from Microsoft Excel and then exported from Numbers. Cool ya?

Definitely a good read though.. Have a look at the A List Apart Web Design Survey results.

What do you think about the results of the survey? Do you think they really reflect the current nature of the Web industry? Share your thoughts!

Founded in 2004, the ‘social utility’ affectionately known to just about everyone you know as Facebook, run from Palo Alto in the United States was valued at no less than $US15 billion ($AUD 16.36 billion), and whilst only trading for a relatively short-lived four years employs 300 staff. One would think Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft would be over the moon today. His bid to win a stake in other successful Web 2.0 endeavours such as Internet ad service DoubleClick Inc. and YouTube were battles lost to Google Inc. By sealing the deal, Microsoft could finally say they have a stake in Web 2.0; because if the past is anything to go by, previous Web 2.0 endeavours by the Redmond-based company such as Spaces and the Zune Marketplace have experienced fairly insignificant take-off speeds.

Its not rocket science to see that Microsoft has a lot to win with the Facebook deal. According to Wikipedia, during its fiscal year ending in June, Microsoft’s online ad revenue rose just 21 percent to $1.84 billion compared to Google’s ad revenue soaring 64 percent to $13.3 billion – Clearly meaning owning a stake in Facebook is a big deal for ‘William’ and his mates.

If nothing else, at least finally the big fish have realised the importance that Web 2.0 plays in today’s information-packed world. Will this lead to Google giving up on their own social network – Orkut? I guess it’ll all be revealed sooner rather than later.

How much do you think this will change what we know and love about Facebook?Was it worthwhile for Facebook as much as it obviously was for Microsoft? Let us know your views.