Describing the Web 2.0 design patterns developed by O’Reilly and Dougherty (2005) and give examples of each.

 Article in response to: https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

What is Web 1.0 and are its characteristics? 

This was everything that could be found on the web before the .com bubble of the year 2000/2001. Websites tended to be very static and just displayed text. There was little to no gathering of data and pages did not encourage participation from visitors to comment or add to the conversation. Websites were effectively, “you get what you see” and not a lot more. There were no inbuilt applications like messaging to be found. People also could not tag content and again change the internet environment. 

 

What is Web 2.0 and are its characteristics? 

 

-        large number of very diverse technologies fall under the Web 2.0 umbrella even though they lack any common characteristics

 

-        Difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 refers to our learning about how to use the web in better ways. A turning point.

 

-        Tredinnick (2006) argues that Web 2.0 represents more than just a technological revolution and is a “shifting understanding of status of information, knowledge and the role of the user in respect of information applications.”

 

-        Ganesh and Padmanabhuni (2007) define web 2.0 as “the adoption of open technologies and architectural frameworks to facilitate participative computing.

 

-        Musser et al.(2006) define web 2.0 as “a set of economic, social, and technology trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet

 

-        a more mature, distinctive medium characterized by user participation, openness, and network effects.” –These trends include user-generated content, openness, standardization, rich user experience,  participation, and remixability of data (Angermeier, 2005).

 

 

 

 

 

 

-        An attitude not a technology

-        Long Tail

-        Software that gets better the more people who use it

-        Trust in users

 

Is Web 2.0 just another marketing buzzword?

Like most things the answer is somewhere in the middle. Marketers and consultants always need new terms and phrases to sound like what they are saying is the cusp of new technology and innovation. They want to make things sound as big and grand as possible. It is a buzzword in the sense that it makes like the improvements that were going on at the time of the .com bubble all happened overnight. This of course did not happen. Like any technological, the process was very gradual as people learned about what they wanted from internet. 

 

.com companies exploded on the stock market and in the media because they were the new technology on the block. Investors likely did not want to miss out even if they did not totally understand what they were investing into. Sometimes simply being can be enough for the stock market. The first car would have brought more of a buzz and hype than the first electric car. While the car was a new technology, the electric element was a modification and improvement. Often if not always the first draft or version of something is not the best version that will ever be created. 

 

Web 2.0 is a buzz word but it is also a representation of renaissance of the internet. Businesses and users were underwhelmed by the first edition of the internet and what it had to offer. It did not initially bring the revenue that many had hoped for. Many had hoped it would be a new age like stream or the gold rush. Ironically it would eventually be but there was a lot of trial and error first. The internet was never going to be perfected in the first few years or even the first 30 years of its existence. The term web 2.0 represents when the first set of crashes and failed business ventures had accrued. People were starting to learn what worked and what didn’t. The .com crash was a reality check for entrepreneurs, investors, users and businesses alike. Perhaps not as rapidly but the changes of web 2.0 would have accrued anyway as humans are always innovating and improving their tools of production. For me, Web 2.0 represents a period of renaissance, but should not be seen as a magical term that changed the internet and how we interact with it overnight. 

 

 

Pattern 1: The Web is a platform

This is when full stack software is able to run on a browser rather than needing its own dedicated piece of software. Without a full stack many of these technologies would be impossible to run on a browser. Many of these websites are known as platforms that are independent of an users computer operating system. 

 

This is very common nowadays with many websites now being able to offer services on a browser that were once only possible with a piece of dedicated software. This means that many websites are applications in the form of a website. This means for developers can create applications and website with just the use of a browner such as safari or chrome. 

 

Some examples of this include Microsoft 365 which offers services such as word, excel, PowerPoint and so on within browsers and no longer must one go to their local computer to buy a version of the software or having to download it from a store as a piece of software. 

 

Facebook has many in built applications. Such as its messaging service, its pages and marketing managers and Facebook local. Also unlike old Web 1.0 pages, the webpage or web application has the ability to display photos and videos posted on the website as well as embedded videos from other websites. 

 

These web applications vary such examples mentioned above. For example, before to get the latest version of software’s such as Microsoft word you needed to buy the latest version. But now when you use a browser, users have the latest version all the time. Users of such software don’t have to worry about their software becoming outdated and eventually useless. In the web 2.0 period, users pay a subscription to always have latest version and are prompted to install updates as soon as they are available. Other examples include Zoho and Google Docs. 

 

Mnay of these inbuilt applications are known as API’s. These little programs are embedded into websites and offer unique functionality and be added to other websites. These include Amazon, YouTube and Google Maps. These applications take data from a dataset and use it to provide their intended purpose. For example, LivePlasma is a service based on customer activity on Amazon. Users can look up their favorite musical artist or book and then be given suggestions to what else they should check out next based on the previous customers. For example a person interested in a business leader like Tony Robbins might be suggested to check out Brendan Burchard or Warren Buffet. Or someone who likes The Script might be suggested to check out The Fray. 

 

Another website that can make these connections are the likes of 23 and Me and MyHeritage that can link users to family members by using data. This kind of discovery can be seen and the new and intelligent search. Essentially the software is trying to predict what you want even before you know what you want. It is the connection of supply and demand. 

 

Pattern 2. Harnessing Collective Intelligence

Another feature of web 2.0 is that many websites benefit from the network effect meaning the more users they have the better the service provided. Giving users a place to generate data and have their own impact on the web. The above mentioned piece talks about how Amazon sells the exact products that many of its competitors do but they have an advantage with their network effects. Products on amazon often give extra value as they have many reviews. These reviews are the differentiator between two companies selling the same thing at the same price. They focused on giving customers what they rather than their own product. Barnes & Noble always made sure that their products were the first customers saw but Amazon is happy to sell users an Apple tablet over their own if that is what will sell. Ebay also has a very similar model and this network effect makes it very difficult for anyone else to gain market share. 

 

Companies like Wikipedia have taken this even further and put complete trust in their users. Users can help contribute to the products themselves ie the articles. This “experiment in trust” is a far cry from static websites that were as mentioned earlier “what you see is what you get” With Wikipedia, users are part of the conversation and improve the Wikipedia service. This concept ties in with the wisdom of crowds. This is an economic concept that states that the opinions of many normal people will aggregate to a better solution than any one member of the group or perhaps many “experts”. The start of blogs that offered comment sections and RSS updates makes it easy for people to stay up to date with a topic and interact with other users. It was the start of public forums that would eventually lead into the likes of Reddit and Twitter. Blogs and similar sites like social media became places of conversation and a chance to meet new people, just like a local sports or drama club. Like Amazon and Ebay the more people who contribute the more valuable the websites become. Just like any place where conversation grows, ideas develop and start to have a greater impact on the world around them. This is known as “collective intelligence”. During the time of Web 1.0 and before the idea that a 280 character message from the United States of America would be the most talked about thing on that day’s news would have sounded unrealistic at best. But the ability to contribute and interest drives interest and therefore usage. 

 

Pattern 3: End of the Software Release Cycle

Web 2.0 delivers flexible services to users not static products. What you subscribe to now will most likely change in the future as web applications are seen to be in a constant beta mode also known as the “perpetual bata”. Companies study how customers use a service. What tools they use what tools they don’t. Then based on this they keep what is popular and they discard what is not. Google are another example of this. They are constantly updating google maps based on the feedback of users. This can be things such as a missing location, a change in shop name, or the additional of a new road. The service you use today could be something different tomorrow. Just like the agile development process, developers often release pieces of before they are complete. They often just release a core product and see what is successful and leaving room to add instead of releasing a finished product like the waterfall method. 

 

Many video games and mobile games in particular are another example of this. Game developers will release what they hope will be enough to be successful and gain a following. They will then add new features to the game to get users to keep coming back and give them a reason to play. The other advantage to doing this is that the piece of software always seems fresh and the developer is never using their last idea to make the product more successful. These new versions are known as builds. This model is also followed by social media sites such as Flickr. The article in question mentions how the photo sharing companies releases a new build every 30 minutes. It also explains how if a company things that a new feature is not working it quickly disappears. This constant changing is only open to companies who have embraced web 2.0 and have the capability to constantly update and innovate.