In this week's lecture we discussed Web 2.0. Strictly speaking, there isn't a hard and fast definition of Web 2.0 (which is awkward) but there seems to be a general feeling that it involves social media, and that it involves people interacting with each other. Tim O'Reilly coined the term for a conference back in the mid-2000s, so it seems sensible to go with his view on the subject. His blog goes into a lot of detail (see it here) on the subject, but to summarise, he says that:
His blog goes into a lot of detail, and is an interesting read. I would certainly recommend it if you would like more depth!
There is some controversy (for want of a better word) around using the term Web 2.0, as Tim Berners-Lee argues that this was always the intention of the World Wide Web. The move to a focus on a network of people rather than of computers was always the grand plan. I can see his point, as he originally wanted to join up information and people with the invention of the Web. The difference now, perhaps, is that it has become so cheap to use the technologies (which were always available) that the Web has been opened up to much more people. High-speed Internet must have helped as well - I remember the days of signing in with a modem and being limited to one hour on the Internet because my Mum wanted to use the telephone. I think I would struggle now to limit my Internet usage like that, as I grab my laptop sporadically to look things up and check Facebook.
It's pretty amazing I've got this far without talking about Facebook! It seems to be commonly associated with Web 2.0, and I suspect everyone has at least heard of Facebook even if they don’t have an account. On Monday, I found it interesting that out of a whole lecture room, only 2 people (3 including our self-styled dissident lecturer, Andy) did not have a Facebook account. We talked about why people choose to have, and not to have, Facebook accounts. The crux of it seemed to be the privacy issue. We did touch on Google+, but for all the excitement about how their privacy settings are allegedly better, only a handful of people actually had accounts. In a way it's difficult to understand - if it does all the same stuff but they care more about your privacy, why doesn't everybody move? That's a big question for a little blog, so I'm not going to go into that here!
My notes for the session describe Facebook as a ‘standard bearer for social networking’. Perhaps that is a bit strong, but then again I did just say that nearly everyone has heard of Facebook and a lot of people have accounts… I think the jury is still out on such a bold statement! But let’s have a quick look at how it works (just in case you have been living on the moon and haven’t heard of it). It’s based on mutual agreement of people to be in contact with each other, so unlike blogs and web pages (in general) you agree with other people that you will be connected as ‘friends’ and have access to each other’s profiles. This is of course generalised, because you can play around with settings to change who can see what on your profile, but for the most part you need to agree to be connected to interact with each other. We discussed Facebook in a group in the lab session (which this week was more of a discussion session) and decided that Facebook was a virtual enhancement of your real life interactions. So you can comment on your friends’ photos, like their comments and chat with them on their wall, via private messaging, or via instant messaging. The other thing about Facebook is that it encourages you to use your real name. Some sites do not (think of Twitter, for instance, where your name tends not to be your name exactly – mine is @kaysafus for example).
In our discussion session, our group were tasked with comparing Facebook to Friends Reunited. The first thing we established was that everyone had heard of Facebook, but not many of us remembered Friends Reunited. None of us had actually used it, and we had to ask our lecturer to show us his profile to try and get an idea of what it was like. This made our discussion a little tricky at first – we were trying to establish where Friends Reunited had got it wrong, and it wasn’t immediately obvious because they seemed to do things in a similar way to Facebook. When we really started analysing it though, we realised that all of us had envisaged Friends Reunited as a site for slightly older people, as the name suggests you are looking for people you are no longer in touch with. Many of us were still at University (or not long out of it) when we joined Facebook, and we saw it as a way of keeping in touch with people we knew at the time, both at home and at University.
Another thing we liked about Facebook was that we never saw any advertising for it. Every single person in the room who had a Facebook account had been invited by a friend. With Friends Reunited, we got the impression that you had to set up a profile in order to be found – if someone is adding you as a friend then surely that defeats the object of Friends Reunited, as you do not need reuniting.
Naturally Web 2.0 is not limited to Facebook. Other examples include Twitter (a sort of mini interactive blog), Wikipedia (an online encyclopaedia where users can contribute) and blogs. I don’t think I really have space in this blog to explore all of them in depth, but it is worth noting that, as with Facebook, collaboration is the key – everyone can get involved. In particular with reference to Wikipedia, you don’t need to have any specific qualifications, or be a subject expert to contribute. Naturally this is a double-edged sword as you can get a rich information source, but it could contain errors. A fellow student admitted to making some erroneous changes to a page, which has not yet been recognised.
How this will all play out will be interesting. There are those (my lecturers included) who rather darkly suggest there may be another bubble-burst, as with the dot com bubble in the 1990s. Personally I’d prefer to be more optimistic – perhaps Web 2.0 will naturally evolve into whatever comes next, rather than collapsing. Aspects of Web 2.0 have become such a part of life for many users that it is difficult imagine not having them – people use Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Wikipedia and other Web 2.0 sites frequently, and it had changed the way people behave online.
Something I find quite interesting is company reactions to Web 2.0, and their policies (or lack thereof). Perhaps it would be interesting to investigate how different types of workplaces approach their staff’s access to Web 2.0. Many businesses seem to be keen to have a web presence on these sites – lots of them have Twitter feeds, Facebook pages and so on, but I wonder what they think about staff using these sites at work. Above I mentioned that people’s online behaviour has changed, perhaps their behaviour at work has changed too – do people expect to be able to access these sites during work hours? In my current workplace we have a Twitter feed (which is Comms led, not KIM led) but no clear policies about whether staff can access their own Twitter accounts during work hours on work PCs. My company also has a YouTube account and Flickr account, for which there are no clear policies either. Then of course there is the issue of staff accessing these sites on their mobile phones (either via company wifi or not) which it would be difficult to have any control over. One company I used to work for blocked Internet access almost completely, and forbade staff from using mobile phones during office hours. Needless to say it was not a fun place to work. I would be interested to know whether this is still the case, but unfortunately I no longer keep in touch with any colleagues from that company.
I have offered a brief introduction to Web 2.0, with an emphasis that Web 2.0 is about networks of people, and interaction between them. I looked at Facebook as an example of a Web 2.0 site. Everyone has heard of it, lots of people use it, and to be honest it's a bit addictive (you won't be surprised, I'm sure, to know I have it open in another tab whilst writing this). I hinted that it has changed the way we behave online, which I hope to explore in another blog. If you would be particularly interested to read about it, leave a comment or send me a message and I'll try and put something together. So what comes next? As I said, I hope there won't be another bubble-burst, rather I would like to think we can build on Web 2.0 and make it even better. After all, if Web 2.0 is based on a network of people, perhaps we have a say in its future.
- The Web is a platform (as opposed to their individual PC, people go online)
- It harnesses collective intelligence (through blogs, social networking, reviews, and so on)
- There is a focus on Data (hopefully that is fairly self-explanatory)
- It is an end to the software release cycle (Software is a service not a product and users should be treated as co-developers)
- It uses Lightweight Programming Models (keep it simple!)
- Software is above the level of a single device (you aren't limited to a PC)
- Rich user experiences (hopefully this one is self-explanatory too)
His blog goes into a lot of detail, and is an interesting read. I would certainly recommend it if you would like more depth!
There is some controversy (for want of a better word) around using the term Web 2.0, as Tim Berners-Lee argues that this was always the intention of the World Wide Web. The move to a focus on a network of people rather than of computers was always the grand plan. I can see his point, as he originally wanted to join up information and people with the invention of the Web. The difference now, perhaps, is that it has become so cheap to use the technologies (which were always available) that the Web has been opened up to much more people. High-speed Internet must have helped as well - I remember the days of signing in with a modem and being limited to one hour on the Internet because my Mum wanted to use the telephone. I think I would struggle now to limit my Internet usage like that, as I grab my laptop sporadically to look things up and check Facebook.
It's pretty amazing I've got this far without talking about Facebook! It seems to be commonly associated with Web 2.0, and I suspect everyone has at least heard of Facebook even if they don’t have an account. On Monday, I found it interesting that out of a whole lecture room, only 2 people (3 including our self-styled dissident lecturer, Andy) did not have a Facebook account. We talked about why people choose to have, and not to have, Facebook accounts. The crux of it seemed to be the privacy issue. We did touch on Google+, but for all the excitement about how their privacy settings are allegedly better, only a handful of people actually had accounts. In a way it's difficult to understand - if it does all the same stuff but they care more about your privacy, why doesn't everybody move? That's a big question for a little blog, so I'm not going to go into that here!
My notes for the session describe Facebook as a ‘standard bearer for social networking’. Perhaps that is a bit strong, but then again I did just say that nearly everyone has heard of Facebook and a lot of people have accounts… I think the jury is still out on such a bold statement! But let’s have a quick look at how it works (just in case you have been living on the moon and haven’t heard of it). It’s based on mutual agreement of people to be in contact with each other, so unlike blogs and web pages (in general) you agree with other people that you will be connected as ‘friends’ and have access to each other’s profiles. This is of course generalised, because you can play around with settings to change who can see what on your profile, but for the most part you need to agree to be connected to interact with each other. We discussed Facebook in a group in the lab session (which this week was more of a discussion session) and decided that Facebook was a virtual enhancement of your real life interactions. So you can comment on your friends’ photos, like their comments and chat with them on their wall, via private messaging, or via instant messaging. The other thing about Facebook is that it encourages you to use your real name. Some sites do not (think of Twitter, for instance, where your name tends not to be your name exactly – mine is @kaysafus for example).
In our discussion session, our group were tasked with comparing Facebook to Friends Reunited. The first thing we established was that everyone had heard of Facebook, but not many of us remembered Friends Reunited. None of us had actually used it, and we had to ask our lecturer to show us his profile to try and get an idea of what it was like. This made our discussion a little tricky at first – we were trying to establish where Friends Reunited had got it wrong, and it wasn’t immediately obvious because they seemed to do things in a similar way to Facebook. When we really started analysing it though, we realised that all of us had envisaged Friends Reunited as a site for slightly older people, as the name suggests you are looking for people you are no longer in touch with. Many of us were still at University (or not long out of it) when we joined Facebook, and we saw it as a way of keeping in touch with people we knew at the time, both at home and at University.
Another thing we liked about Facebook was that we never saw any advertising for it. Every single person in the room who had a Facebook account had been invited by a friend. With Friends Reunited, we got the impression that you had to set up a profile in order to be found – if someone is adding you as a friend then surely that defeats the object of Friends Reunited, as you do not need reuniting.
Naturally Web 2.0 is not limited to Facebook. Other examples include Twitter (a sort of mini interactive blog), Wikipedia (an online encyclopaedia where users can contribute) and blogs. I don’t think I really have space in this blog to explore all of them in depth, but it is worth noting that, as with Facebook, collaboration is the key – everyone can get involved. In particular with reference to Wikipedia, you don’t need to have any specific qualifications, or be a subject expert to contribute. Naturally this is a double-edged sword as you can get a rich information source, but it could contain errors. A fellow student admitted to making some erroneous changes to a page, which has not yet been recognised.
How this will all play out will be interesting. There are those (my lecturers included) who rather darkly suggest there may be another bubble-burst, as with the dot com bubble in the 1990s. Personally I’d prefer to be more optimistic – perhaps Web 2.0 will naturally evolve into whatever comes next, rather than collapsing. Aspects of Web 2.0 have become such a part of life for many users that it is difficult imagine not having them – people use Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Wikipedia and other Web 2.0 sites frequently, and it had changed the way people behave online.
Something I find quite interesting is company reactions to Web 2.0, and their policies (or lack thereof). Perhaps it would be interesting to investigate how different types of workplaces approach their staff’s access to Web 2.0. Many businesses seem to be keen to have a web presence on these sites – lots of them have Twitter feeds, Facebook pages and so on, but I wonder what they think about staff using these sites at work. Above I mentioned that people’s online behaviour has changed, perhaps their behaviour at work has changed too – do people expect to be able to access these sites during work hours? In my current workplace we have a Twitter feed (which is Comms led, not KIM led) but no clear policies about whether staff can access their own Twitter accounts during work hours on work PCs. My company also has a YouTube account and Flickr account, for which there are no clear policies either. Then of course there is the issue of staff accessing these sites on their mobile phones (either via company wifi or not) which it would be difficult to have any control over. One company I used to work for blocked Internet access almost completely, and forbade staff from using mobile phones during office hours. Needless to say it was not a fun place to work. I would be interested to know whether this is still the case, but unfortunately I no longer keep in touch with any colleagues from that company.
I have offered a brief introduction to Web 2.0, with an emphasis that Web 2.0 is about networks of people, and interaction between them. I looked at Facebook as an example of a Web 2.0 site. Everyone has heard of it, lots of people use it, and to be honest it's a bit addictive (you won't be surprised, I'm sure, to know I have it open in another tab whilst writing this). I hinted that it has changed the way we behave online, which I hope to explore in another blog. If you would be particularly interested to read about it, leave a comment or send me a message and I'll try and put something together. So what comes next? As I said, I hope there won't be another bubble-burst, rather I would like to think we can build on Web 2.0 and make it even better. After all, if Web 2.0 is based on a network of people, perhaps we have a say in its future.
No comments:
Post a Comment