Why Are the Most Creative People in Business Skipping Out on Web 2.0?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Daniel Andrew Young on May 28, 2009 at 2:12am

Hey, Pat. I've seen Web 2.0 referred to, but I've never seen anything that explains exactly what it is. I know I'm behind the curve on emerging technology, but I'm not a full-time techie. For those of us not working in IT or web development every day, couldja give a quick synopsis? I used to think it was the new infrastructure being built to augment and eventually replace the big Internet hubs, but now I'm just clueless...

THANKS

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Doug Vann on May 28, 2009 at 7:38am

I purposely didn't google "web 2.0" before posting a reply to your excellent question. I didn't want to be tainted by what ever results would have come back. Here's my definition of web2.0:
Web 2.0 has THREE COMPONENTS; Content, Functionality, and Presentation.
CONTENT:
You are looking at web 2.0 when you see content that the site maintainers did not author. This could be content pulled in dynamically from other sources, OR contributed content that comes from the users of the site. This is a sharp contrast to the web 1.0 sites that have mostly static content like a brochure website.
FUNCTIONALITY:
Mailing lists, email notifications, forums, chat, text message alerts, and contact forms add useful features to a web 2.0 site. Technologies like Flash, Flex, and javascript are a web 2.0 staple. They are used to create dashboards, interfaces, and widgets that allow users to organize lists, upload multiple images, customize page layout, and other elements of the user experience. This was a "fad" years ago due to slow connections and browser incompatibility. But today, developing snazzy functionality into a site is a space-race of sorts. It is intended to be as user friendly as it is feature rich, but occasionally adds a layer of frustration as users have to learn exactly how the functionality works and how to interact with it to accomplish their goals.
PRESENTATION:
This bleeds a bit into functionality but generally deals with the manner in which information (the content on a site) is presented and found. Mouse-Over menus, faceted search options, the ubiquitous "did you mean ...." in search results is a sign that the presentation portion of a site is definitely web 2.0. Collapsible field sets give you an "accordion" layout. The ability to filter down to the UNREAD content on a page aids the access to content. The ability to tag content by short defining terms leads to better search functionality later. Short "teaser" versions of content followed by the ever present "Read More..." link was possibly the 1st kid on the block of web 2.0 presentation. This area is VALUE added to be sure which is why you see many sites being designed around the Presentation aspect of the site.

This got longer than I had intended, but I wanted to include enough jargon so that any one who wishes to can google some of the terms I introduced. I hope this helps!
- Doug Vann
- www.dougvann.com web developer
- www.twitter.com/dougvann

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Pat Coyle on May 28, 2009 at 9:33am

The term, Web 2.0, was coined by Tim O'Reilly. This article explains the background. If you'll read it you'll see that O'Reilly noticed a shift occur in the mid-1990's "dot bomb" era. As big, overblown Web portals were meeting their demise, he saw a new crop of nimble applications popping up...these applications had a set of distinctive features and functionality that really were fundamentally new to the Web. Hence the "web 2.0" name. Since then millions of people have grabbed the term and applied it liberally, perhaps too liberally, to everything on the Web today. My simple view is Web 1.0 was mainly about static Websites, whereas Web 2.0 applications allow, and in fact rely on input and participation from the users themselves.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Mark on May 28, 2009 at 11:43am

I concur. Especially your last sentence. Perfect.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kevin MacDonald on May 28, 2009 at 2:31am

Why are they skipping out on Web 2.0? I don't know, but for my money, I think we sometimes make too much of social networks, Twitter, etc. (Ironic, really, since I'm saying that on SmallerIndiana).

Do we sometimes make too much out of the latest emerging technology? Twenty years ago, social networking took place around the workplace water cooler. Could you imagine holding an entire conference about how to enhance the water cooler?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I simply think we over emphasize the tool rather than the true innovations out there. Perhaps the 100 most creative people (according to Fast Company) realize the play's still the thing; not its stage, lighting or venue.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by asa blevins on May 28, 2009 at 3:21am

Probably don't have the time. Creativity takes a lot of work.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Doug Vann on May 28, 2009 at 7:50am

www.fastcompany.com is a site built on DRUPAL which is the only technology that I use in my web development business. OK I got the Drupal plug out of the way!

I agree with those who say that the successful people may not have as much time to be active citizens of "The Social Web." I would go one further and say that they may not need to be active. Personally, I am a very social guy. While I love technology I would be a sad puppy if I worked in a server room all day and never saw the end users or other people. So for me, The Social Web is a place where I want to be. Now, notwithstanding that I actually enjoy it... I need to be here. My activity online has created a Web-Persona that depicts me as a web developer, technology trainer, and (I hope) a guy you want to do business with or at least sit down with for a cup of coffee. This aids my bottom line as potential clients and future collaborators find me online.
I just elaborated on the benefits I reap from my interactivity online. Do successful people need those same benefits? I say not really. Would it be a positive impact if they participated more? I suspect yes, but with no need driving it I predict the trend to continue. Only glory hounds like Ashton Kutcher and Oprah break the mold with their ever-present online existence. For them, I say their success is magnified by these activities. This may not necessarily provide the same outcome for other successful individuals.
Just my opinion...
- Doug Vann
- www.dougvann.com
- www.twitter.com/dougvann

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tom Marsh on May 28, 2009 at 9:27am

While I can't speak for these other people, I think what they're doing makes perfect sense.

These people are professionals whose job it is to consider all of the consequences and benefits of the technology, and I'm sure many of them have thought along the lines I've been thinking along...

I'm doing an experiment. I've simply stopped using my personal Facebook and MySpace pages. Don't login to them, check them, or care about them. And honestly, I don't remotely miss it. In a couple more weeks I'll probably just ask that those accounts be deleted from those services. It seems so superfluous and time-consuming and really accomplishes nothing. The people I am personally "close" to are still the same people I was "close" to before I started using the services. The only difference is I've gotten one or two messages from people I haven't heard from in years... And then I haven't heard from them since. Why bother?

Personally, I've begun to really examine my use of online "social" media and I've come to the conclusion that, for personal purposes, it maybe isn't my cup of tea. Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and even Ning (sorry Pat) exist to deliver up ads based on people's actual interests, in order to make those users more likely to click on those ads and buy the products they represent. Since the whole thing relies on getting accurate information, what better way to achieve that than to start a fad where everybody puts everything about themselves on-line. For a lot of people, it has fundamentally redefined their definition of "friendship," and in a way that, in my opinion, doesn't grow human society in the right direction. I don't want to "network" with my friends--I want them to be my friends. I have enough "networking" to do for work.

Part two was this: I Don't know that I want every person I know in the universe who has managed to find their way onto my Facebook friend-list to know EVERYTHING about me. Its not important to me that my network know I had an Italian Sub for lunch or that my technical conference is taking a break. Part of the joy of being a private individual is the ability to have some "alone" time where you're just thinking or walking or riding your bike without everybody in the universe knowing where you are and what you're doing. I CHERISH my "off the grid" time and will give it up when it is pried (apologies to Charlton Heston) from my cold, dead hand.

Nail in the coffin for me was also the "look at me aspect" of the way many Facebook and MySpace users function. One of the aforementioned "haven't seen you in years" people connected with me and I took a serious look at her page and her profile and her blog and its like... Man, don't you want ANYTHING to be private? I knew EVERYTHING and this is somebody I dated twice when I was 17 years-old. Honestly, I didn't WANT that much detail. and this led me to thinking "Does anybody really care about my pithy blog posts or FB statuses?" And the honest answer I kept coming to was, with a few exceptions who enjoy reading other people's "free-writing" my answer was "No, its just background noise to escape the boredom of work."

Now, I still do social networking for work through sites like this, and do find it useful for certain applications, but I just don't have any desire to go back to participating in it for personal-use. My really close friends will remain so whether I participate or not, I don't care if remote acquaintances know I have baseball tickets tonight, or concert tickets for Saturday, and I'm really not that hungry for attention to every inane detail of my life.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by George Roots on May 28, 2009 at 11:33am

Phenomenal Post....

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by George Roots on May 28, 2009 at 3:18pm

lol...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nicki Laycoax on May 28, 2009 at 3:19pm

He already did... :)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Mark on May 28, 2009 at 11:50am

Great, great post, but I'm still curious. What did you have for breakfast this morning? ;) Thanks Tom for your input. You saved me 10 minutes of writing! I agree 100%. Some things should remain sacred.

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last