I’m damn tired of hearing about how “Web 2.0 sucks” because someone doesn’t like Ajax. The so-called “Web 2.0” (by the way, I hate that buzzword), isn’t a technology, it’s a mindset.
Web 2.0 != Ajax.
Discuss.
Comments
There are currently 28 comments on this entry. If you have something to say, please consider adding your own.
Agreed. I think of Web 2.0 as having an emphasis on usable tools, better user interaction, clever functionality, and extensibility (APIs and whatnot). AJAX, properly applied, helps on the “user interaction” part.
I don’t consider Ajax to be a part of Web 2.0 at all. One Web 2.0 concept is the idea of a more rich user interface. Ajax can obviously help you achieve this, but it can certainly be achieved without Ajax, as well.
I’ve heard this sort of sentiment a few times recently (basically it’s just Ajax basklash, which happens to any popular technology), but the one that really prompted me to write this was this one:
That’s one reason I think the buzzword itself is kind of silly. Even though I tend to agree with most of the concepts and principles included in the so-called “Web 2.0,” I think the term itself makes it sound like something it’s not.
How can people “not like” AJAX ?
I can dislike some uses people give to it, but not the whole thing… A web form can be “rich” without AJAX and be part of the web 2.0 idea; but to my criteria, it can only get better with AJAX integration…
And just for the record, I’m not talking about AJAX as the misinterpreted fancy JS effects that are all over the web (drag-n-drop ne1?)… I’m talking about asynchronious mini-post-backs and unobtrusive light javascript/DOM magic.
I totally agree. I think at large, web geeks that are trying to sound hip will apply the term AJAX to anything that looks cool or changes things on a screen. I even heard someone call a Flash application AJAX recently, in reference to Yahoo Maps beta. I had to point out that if he absolutely had to throw a nifty acronym on it, that it would be “AFAX” meaning Asynchronous Flash and XML, because JavaScript had nothing to do with it!
Everybody loves to hate memes, but as annoying and meaningless as they are, at least they give people people who don’t know what they’re talking about (e.g. journalists) something to refer to.
The irony is that I had to turn off my most of my toolbars before I could see the post and preview buttons on this comment field.
So… web 2.0 is about focusing on user experience and best practices? How is that distinct from what a web designer is supposed to do anyway? Does it matter what tools you accomplish it with? Yeah it’s great that all this new technology is available now. But it doesn’t mean that people that weren’t thoughtful and skilled at usability before, will suddenly become amazing designers thanks to all these lovely new frameworks.
It just seems like we’re all just excited about these new amazing things we can do with javascript/ruby/css that we come up with all these hypey buzzwords to make it seem accessable to laymen (and fail at that), and then drape it with a veil of legitimacy by trying to describe it as something more, deeper, and newer, than just good design practices combined with a good knowledge of technology.
The irony is that I had to turn off my most of my toolbars before I could see the post and preview buttons on this comment field.
I fail to see the irony.
It just seems like we’re all just excited about these new amazing things we can do with javascript/ruby/css that we come up with all these hypey buzzwords to make it seem accessable to laymen (and fail at that), and then drape it with a veil of legitimacy by trying to describe it as something more, deeper, and newer, than just good design practices combined with a good knowledge of technology.
Web 2.0 doesn’t suck. It doesn’t really mean anything — or rather it means so many things that it’s meaningless. Or something.
My favorite definition of Web 2.0 comes from Chris Pirillo: “Web 2.0 is a $2,800 ticket to a tech conference. That’s all it is.”
As far as Ajax? It’s just a tool. If used appropriately it’s great, if not it sucks. Pretty simple.
I guess my biggest problem with Web 2.0 or bubble 2.0 is the focus on technology as opposed to the people that use it. It’s strikes me as if we’re falling into the same old traps we did in the past…
I think of Ajax as a tool for implementing a new interaction model in web applications. Basically I agree with the definition: “it basically now means that javascript works”. But yes, there has definately been a few marketers seizing the opportunity to make money! But I still love the new opportunities and will eventually mature.
001 // Bartolemew // 12.14.2005 // 12:21 AM
Web 2.0 > AJAX
Web 2.0 = i
002 // Peter Akkies // 12.14.2005 // 1:44 AM
$web20 = array( ‘this’, ‘that’, ‘more’, ‘lots more’, ‘ajax’ );
003 // Paul D // 12.14.2005 // 2:02 AM
Agreed. I think of Web 2.0 as having an emphasis on usable tools, better user interaction, clever functionality, and extensibility (APIs and whatnot). AJAX, properly applied, helps on the “user interaction” part.
004 // Jeff Croft // 12.14.2005 // 7:46 AM
Exactly, Paul.
I don’t consider Ajax to be a part of Web 2.0 at all. One Web 2.0 concept is the idea of a more rich user interface. Ajax can obviously help you achieve this, but it can certainly be achieved without Ajax, as well.
005 // JBagley // 12.14.2005 // 7:52 AM
AJAX is definitely not Web 2.0, but it is 1 piece of the Web 2.0 puzzle, which for the life of me I can’t finish!
BTW Jeff, care to share who or what got your back up about Web 2.0?
006 // Jeff Croft // 12.14.2005 // 7:55 AM
I’ve heard this sort of sentiment a few times recently (basically it’s just Ajax basklash, which happens to any popular technology), but the one that really prompted me to write this was this one:
http://www.jroller.com/page/fate/20051209
007 // Richard@Home // 12.14.2005 // 8:41 AM
I’m not even sure there IS a web2.0 yet, to me it looks more like web1.2
Nothing that has been suggested (as far as I’m aware) is radically different to what we have available now.
008 // Jeff Croft // 12.14.2005 // 8:56 AM
Richard-
That’s one reason I think the buzzword itself is kind of silly. Even though I tend to agree with most of the concepts and principles included in the so-called “Web 2.0,” I think the term itself makes it sound like something it’s not.
009 // Allan R. // 12.14.2005 // 9:44 AM
How can people “not like” AJAX ? I can dislike some uses people give to it, but not the whole thing… A web form can be “rich” without AJAX and be part of the web 2.0 idea; but to my criteria, it can only get better with AJAX integration… And just for the record, I’m not talking about AJAX as the misinterpreted fancy JS effects that are all over the web (drag-n-drop ne1?)… I’m talking about asynchronious mini-post-backs and unobtrusive light javascript/DOM magic.
010 // Nathan Smith // 12.14.2005 // 10:29 AM
I totally agree. I think at large, web geeks that are trying to sound hip will apply the term AJAX to anything that looks cool or changes things on a screen. I even heard someone call a Flash application AJAX recently, in reference to Yahoo Maps beta. I had to point out that if he absolutely had to throw a nifty acronym on it, that it would be “AFAX” meaning Asynchronous Flash and XML, because JavaScript had nothing to do with it!
011 // Elliot Swan // 12.14.2005 // 11:19 AM
I think Web 2.0 is about focusing on a user experience, and getting content out to them. AJAX is just one way of going about doing this…
012 // Wilson // 12.14.2005 // 11:56 AM
Everybody loves to hate memes, but as annoying and meaningless as they are, at least they give people people who don’t know what they’re talking about (e.g. journalists) something to refer to.
013 // Jeff Croft // 12.14.2005 // 12 PM
I don’t object to buzzwords in general (like you said, they aide in communication), I just think this particular one sounds really silly.
“Web 2.0.” No offense, Mr. Riley, but that name just sucks. :)
014 // James AkaXakA // 12.14.2005 // 1:40 PM
Ye, AJAX actually has substance, Web 2 point-ohhh! is a clever way to build buzz for a O’reilly conference.
Bla-di-blah mindset, yada yada. Why do we always keep falling for the web-hype used to sell the web to managers..?
Of course, AJAX hype has neatly been transformed into DHTML 2, and thus encourages design abuse.
015 // James AkaXakA // 12.14.2005 // 1:42 PM
Oh, and http://www.jroller.com/page/fate/20051209 is right on the money - the “web revolution idea” has been around forever.
016 // Jeff Croft // 12.14.2005 // 1:48 PM
He may be right on the money, but he still thinks that Web 2.0 and Ajax are the same thing — which they’re not.
017 // James AkaXakA // 12.14.2005 // 3:11 PM
Sure - but their respective hype is flowing into each other.
018 // Nathan Smith // 12.14.2005 // 7:41 PM
“Sure - but their respective hype is flowing into each other.”
I think this is the exact type of attitude that Jeff is trying to steer people away from.
019 // Brian Ford // 12.14.2005 // 9:25 PM
(Something) 2.0 is quickly becoming the (Something) 2000 of the aughts.
I only wish that Conan would replace “In the Year 2000” with “On the Web 2.0”
020 // Joen // 12.15.2005 // 4:17 PM
Some people call it Bubble 2.0.
Some people are waiting for Web 2.1, with the kinks worked out.
Some people think it’s ajax, tags, ruby on rails, invites, googlish simplicity.
I just love to stand back and wach from afar.
Seen this: http://andrewwooldridge.com/myapps/webtwopointoh.html ?
021 // James AkaXakA // 12.15.2005 // 5:13 PM
Nathan Smith: AJAX shouldn’t be hyped. It should just be another tool in one’s toolbox.
022 // Breton // 12.16.2005 // 1:30 AM
The irony is that I had to turn off my most of my toolbars before I could see the post and preview buttons on this comment field.
So… web 2.0 is about focusing on user experience and best practices? How is that distinct from what a web designer is supposed to do anyway? Does it matter what tools you accomplish it with? Yeah it’s great that all this new technology is available now. But it doesn’t mean that people that weren’t thoughtful and skilled at usability before, will suddenly become amazing designers thanks to all these lovely new frameworks.
It just seems like we’re all just excited about these new amazing things we can do with javascript/ruby/css that we come up with all these hypey buzzwords to make it seem accessable to laymen (and fail at that), and then drape it with a veil of legitimacy by trying to describe it as something more, deeper, and newer, than just good design practices combined with a good knowledge of technology.
023 // Jeff Croft // 12.16.2005 // 7 AM
The irony is that I had to turn off my most of my toolbars before I could see the post and preview buttons on this comment field.
I fail to see the irony.
It just seems like we’re all just excited about these new amazing things we can do with javascript/ruby/css that we come up with all these hypey buzzwords to make it seem accessable to laymen (and fail at that), and then drape it with a veil of legitimacy by trying to describe it as something more, deeper, and newer, than just good design practices combined with a good knowledge of technology.
Pretty much. But isn’t that every industry?
024 // Keith // 12.16.2005 // 10:21 AM
Web 2.0 doesn’t suck. It doesn’t really mean anything — or rather it means so many things that it’s meaningless. Or something.
My favorite definition of Web 2.0 comes from Chris Pirillo: “Web 2.0 is a $2,800 ticket to a tech conference. That’s all it is.”
As far as Ajax? It’s just a tool. If used appropriately it’s great, if not it sucks. Pretty simple.
I guess my biggest problem with Web 2.0 or bubble 2.0 is the focus on technology as opposed to the people that use it. It’s strikes me as if we’re falling into the same old traps we did in the past…
025 // ZT // 12.16.2005 // 12:13 PM
Who’s been bitching about Web 2.0? And where did they get the idea it wa AJAX. Thats like saying Javascript is HTML.
026 // Rune // 12.18.2005 // 3:31 PM
I think of Ajax as a tool for implementing a new interaction model in web applications. Basically I agree with the definition: “it basically now means that javascript works”. But yes, there has definately been a few marketers seizing the opportunity to make money! But I still love the new opportunities and will eventually mature.
027 // Faruk Ate? // 12.24.2005 // 1:55 PM
James said: Nathan Smith: AJAX shouldn’t be hyped. It should just be another tool in one’s toolbox.
The same thing could be said about CSS-based development instead of table-based, but you have no problem with people hyping CSS.
028 // Bryan Veloso // 01.03.2006 // 3:45 PM
Should we send it to hell? :)