Web 2.0 is such a tricky beast to define. I'm asked quite a bit. Now more than ever.
Up here in Canada, most people in traditional marketing circles are shocked when I say Web 2.0 is already on its way out. They are still trying to come to terms with what web2.0 was. And I can't blame them for being upset or lost as we were never able to define it properly even in its heyday.
Many people have debated and discussed Web 2.0 as a definition. Wikipedia gives credit to Tim O'Reilly as defining "Web 2.0 [as] the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform." But this definition is very general to the point of being incomprehensible.
I've tended to build my discussions on Web 2.0 around the concept of sharing data and services across websites. But this fails to address a number of other views: Ajax, GUI elements, new color palettes, social media, changing consumer behavior and more.
I'm coming to believe that Web 2.0 is more about a time. It's a piece of an era in our culture. And with that culture comes our new relationship with technology, a shift in beliefs, and a resulting shift in design. This helps to explain the inability to define Web 2.0 and also the unclear and hazy edges that defy an exact dating of its influence.
Design is changing, as with any era or culture. We can see it in the changing color palettes, the look and feel of websites, a shift to a social community focus ,and even fashion.
And now there's even a collection of logos that are web 2.0 ready/enabled. I love it. It speaks to this idea that this is indeed a shift in our culture that leading brands are working to meet and maintain relevance with.
Of course, we could argue that its going to take more than a logo change, but I'll save my cynicism for a later post.
Here is the image on the left. You can click to view a larger version.
Or you can also check out the the original from gtmcknight



I love




Recent Comments