While the exact definition of what puts a new site into the “Web 2.0” category is still a bit fuzzy (all of Tim OReillys attempts to define it aside), its a bit like the famous definition of pornography: You know it when you see it.
What makes a site worthy of the “Web 2.0” definition? First it has to treat the Web as a platform, not just a place to plop information or run database queries.
Next, it has to take into account the fact that the Web is a networked platform and that the best results come from recognizing these connections and facilitating them through social features such as tagging and collaboration.
Web 2.0 sites arent as much published as they are streamed, constantly improving and growing through participation by, and an inherent respect of, their users.
/zimages/4/28571.gifMicrosoft offers “Atlas” for Web 2.0 developers.Click hereto read more.
For the most part, creators of Web 2.0 applications appreciate design, understand both the economic and ergonomic benefits of user experience, and strive to be useful in a real-world way. “Web 2.0-ness” might be tough to define, but when youre experiencing it, you know.
Theres been a huge explosion of innovation and creativity during the past few years, an explosion that rivals what happened during the boom years of the late 90s. Sites like Flickr, MySpace, Writely, Odeo and Del.icio.us are commonly cited examples, but there are literally hundreds of sites that fit the definition.
Probably one of the most compelling promises of the Web 2.0 crowd is that at some point in the future well all be able to ditch the overhead and problems of our increasingly buggy operating systems and do everything online.
/zimages/4/28571.gifRead the full story on Publish.com: I Love Your New Web 2.0 App … Now Fix It!
/zimages/4/28571.gifCheck out eWEEK.coms for the latest news, reviews and analysis in programming environments and developer tools.