Visualizing Web 2.0

This is a very cool framework! I love how you have been trying to visualize web 2.0. Will have to soak in your chart and give you more comments later. I thought you might like to check out www.blinklist.com, another web 2.0 site that we recently launched. We would be very flattered if you checked out our site given your passion and interest in the space.

One comment about your current graph. It is unclear why some of the same things such as RSS show up both under "Face" and under technical "content & services." Mike

Thanks for the kind words Mike.

I put RSS in both the Face and Content & Services sections because RSS is sometimes the endpoint to the user and other times it's remixed or used without being seen by the user. IMHO, it has a dual presence (at least) in the Web 2.0 world.

And yes, absolutely, I will take a look at what you guys are working on.

Best Regards,

Dion

Where is the diagram for easier illegal FBI and NSA tapping of unsuspecting users? and the section about how the Web 2.0 community is willingly going along with this govt farce??

Hi Dion,

Ok, I see why you include RSS in both of these frameworks. Here is another dimension that I just thought about that is not in your current framework.

What about "social software." I think that is what you are getting at with trust sources but I do think that social software (either implicit or explicit connections) are an important source for trust. Not sure if it fits in there or needs to be called out seperately.

Also, our sign-up form on blinklist was down but we just fixed it so it should be back up. Glad to hear that you will be checking out the site. Also, come back next week, we are going to release some improvements. Mike

Good start, the 'Face' section seems a little muddled though. I guess it just feels like those five things don't really belong together.

Isn't AJAX the same as DHTML on the front end? Maybe the request is slightly different but the end result is the same (javascript playing with a page's DOM).

Not sure I follow the 'end points' concept. How is a blog an endpoint. Blogs seem to create content that is either rendered in HTML or sent as a FEED.

Dion,

This is a great diagram. I tend to agree that the "face" needs work, although it's hard to say what is face and what's not. Also, I wonder if maybe the long tail should be in there somewhere. Anyway, great start.

Why not replace RSS with OPML on the facing side?

Thanks for all your comments so far, they are very welcome here.

Yes, several things need to be added to and fixed about the diagram, probably including the following:

1) OPML

2) Architecture forces such as decentralization, participation, and web as platform.

3) What do about media like images and video, where do they fit in.

4) Figure out if blogs belong in the Web 2.0 face (I tend to agree they are already represented by HTML/DHTML).

5) Browsers that support Web 2.0. Probably need this too.

6) Does Flash count? Probably not. It just doesn't seem like it makes the Web 2.0 cut.

Also, I did split Ajax and DHTML, and I'm conflicted about this but I do think they are slightly different though they both use the same technology.

Keep the comments and suggestions coming and I'll start on a rework.

Thanks all!

Best,

Dion

I wasn't completely happy with your version, nor Tim's, so I took the liberty of coming up with a visualisation of my own. Check it out on http://blog.forret.com/blog/2005/09/web-20-mememap-overview.html All remarks are welcome!

Peter,

Very nice picture of Web 2.0, very impressive.

I do worry that these pictures are starting to take on the complexity of a SOA architecture diagram. I think Dave Winer is correct we he says that we haven't boiled this stuff down to a usable level of simplicity quite yet.

I still think my visualization is a bit more specific and concrete, though you have some nice conceptual organization around content and remixing.

Dion,

I think you've compiled a good list of Web 2.0-related technologies, but I don't think your visualization offers much over presenting this list as, well, a list.

What I think your visualization needs is people. Part of "the web as platform" is about web-oriented technologies being able to do most of the things that desktop apps can, but a bigger part is that web apps can do social stuff that standalone desktop apps can't. That is the real benefit of Web 2.0. (Of course, by this reading my own voo2do.com is just a Web 1.0 app with a nice interface... so far.)

So what I'd like to see in a visualization is the overlap of Web 2.0 structure and the structure of the social lives of several individuals. People meet and interact in office buildings, cafes, bars, homes (show pictures of these). People meet and interact on the web in blogs, flickr, and yahoo groups. People throw parties and hold meetings and conf calls to check in on many of their associates at once in meat space; we use RSS aggregators in cyberspace.

More: in meatspace, we use cities and cars to allow end-users to connect various providers of goods and services in order to achieve their goals. In cyberspace, we use XML, APIs, and permalinks.

Developer.

Sorry about that last comment... rental fingers.

I've been thinking a lot about how to explain the web2.0 concept, to those unfamiliar with a lot of the topics / buzzwords. I've created this image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mydailycommute/47716839/ as a way to gather my thoughts. Your feedback is welcome / appreciated. The map was inspired by/based on this one: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenlee/2756 1661/">www.flickr.com/photos/kenlee/27561661/</a>

Dion. I think your map is a great architectural / technical overview. Tim O'Reilly's mime also a lot of merit. But both seem to me a little too technical in their focus. I agree with the comment from voo2do that the people / social software part -- coupled with the true KM it implies, is the key driver of 'web 2.0' (e.g. semantic web redux!). Not sure if this will add to the definition development or not, but for what it is worth, here is my drawing of the information characteristics of web 2.0: ht tp://web2musings.blogspot.com/2005/09/envisioning-web-2.html Here is my stab at the the person & information intersection in Web 1.0 vs. 2.0 http://web2musings.blogspot.com/2005/09/in-beginning-we-hun ted-and-gathered.html

Thanks Kelly,

I posted your interesting visual to Flickr and tagged it with 'blogoposium1' so it would get added to the other visualizations we have on Web 2.0. Hope you don't mind.

Anyway, it's a pretty good view and it's much more task focused than others, which makes it more about people. Like O'Reilly said about his meme-map, it's more about a mindset than about specific technologies.

I like it!

Now how to simplify all this I wonder and distill it into a view anyone 'gets'?

Best,

Dion

First of all, I want to thank you for your efforts in developing this shared conceptualization and visuallization of Next Generation Web.

I think you've choosen the right elements, but they could be reordered in a layered scheme taking some point into consideration:

The face of Web 2.0 must be a more "human" o social one labeled with social interactions like conversate, share, collaborate, publish... that could be supported by the corresponding processes (blogging, tagging, sharing, publishing, networking) in the next level.

The two underlaying levels could be devoted to content formats or styles (blogs, wikis, podcasts, folksonomies, social software) and technology (Web Services, Information Standards, microformats, semantic web)

It's possible that the technology layer could be splitted into information infrastructure and services.

I'll try to depict this visuallization and send you the link, but meanwhile you can read my point on Next Generation Web in the following URL,

http://comodios.blogspot.com/2005/09/blogs-and-next-generation-web.html

Hi, I have been closely tracking the development of Web 2.0 and I have the following observation that I would like to share with you.

If the Internet represents the 'collective intelligence of humanity' then in my opinion we require better tooling to utilize it. I wouldn't expect the 'virtual brain of humanity' to come with a 'search box' as its primary interface :-)

At the following URL, I have described how we can build a better tool to handle the huge volume of information that is getting published on the net. I call this tool FolkMind.

http://www.chiramattel.com/george/blog/2005/10/14/fol kmind_a_killer_app_for_the_1.html

I AM NEW COMER TELL ME HOW TO DESIGN THE WEB

Check out http://www.koolweb2.com

Best of Web 2.0 sites ranked by actual users. Drag & drop sites to desired spot in the list and submit rankings. Overall rankings reflect cumulative average of all user submissions. Recommend a new site as well..

I agree

Architectural Visualization Design

Are you looking for local talent and are based in Adelaide, South Australia then check out the professional team at http://www.squareframe.com

Using Overture tools the best search engine optimisation terms for Architectural Visualization Design is as follow:

• 801 visualisation

• 131 music visualisation

• 122 architectural visualisation

• 75 creative visualisation

• 67 3d visualisation

• 45 technique visualisation

Which is only a small segment of Animation

• 144199 animation

• 31602 free animation

• 16987 flash animation

• 16580 3d animation

Cheers squareframe.com

I appreciate that you've made it clear that web 2.0 is not just a chatoic mishmash, but rather a controlled organization of content ..

The picture is not showing... can you update the link?

Thanks for very interesting article

Very nice visualization and picture of Web 2.0. Professional work. Best Romuald

I'm looking forward to another great articles.

Dion -- I think it's time to update this visualization. It seems much too focused on formats and protocols, and doesn't really convey the importance of the two cornerstones of Web 2.0: audience participation and the Web as a platform.

For example Ajax and other RIA technologies are wonderful, but just because a site uses Ajax, that doesn't make it Web 2.0. The site must somehow solicit audience participation -- and they more participation it solicits, the more Web 2.0 it is.

I also recommend incorporating Marc Andreessen's latest musing on <a href="http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/09/the-three-kinds.html">Internet Platforms</a>.

Really useful diagram -I still feel that the challenge here is around successfully implementing this into a robust framework for large retaillers. I am a senior project managaer for a major UK multi-channel retailler, currently looking at implementing many of these areas on our site. However with turnover getting close to £1Billion on the site alone, the stability and performance impact of these technologies on a site of this scale is a real headache. CSS2/xHTML alone have proven difficult to genuinely implement in a true cross-browser way that doesn't disciminate against all users. Is there a danger that we could leave significant usergroups behind in the surge towards this approach?

The other element that can get left behind is the impact to the core business of actually supporting and monitoring all this once deployed. This takes time and effort - the key qustion for us is whether the percieved benefits of the 2.0 strategy marry up to the increased costs of administering these from a commercial and legal perspective.

I'm looking forward to another great articles.

Another good art. Thank you

Great Ideas, Ill send you an email about this later.