3/2/2009 4:53 PM
Perry wrote:
It's about focusing on the users' needs rather than the company's abilities. Emphasize content rather than interface. Reply to this
3/2/2009 4:54 PM
Jonathan Castaneda wrote:
Communication between users is different, more seamless. Website design is more smooth, visually appearing, more sophisticated. Activities conducted over the internet are simpler, easier to use, more user-friendly.
Web 1.0 was something static, "lets put up a web page." Now when you go to the internet there's a profile, a chat room, interaction. Thus turning it into a collaborative entity. Reply to this
3/2/2009 4:54 PM
Kiran Sorathia wrote:
The insight I gained into the business of Web 2.0 was that all of it rides on the user. It depends greatly on social interaction, and businesses need to take that into account when creating their sites, and it is always changing, as a result of their users, i.e. that there's a collaboration between the users of the site and the business behind it. Reply to this
3/2/2009 4:54 PM
Mary Effler wrote:
Ads are a great way to raise easy revenue for the upkeep of the servers web 2.0 requires. Also, the main importance it to keep sites rather simple and easy to interact with, as opposed to throwing in 5 million features. Or at least, at the start you need to keep it simple, then can later develop complexity. Reply to this
3/2/2009 4:55 PM
Jennifer wrote:
What you can do is almost completely unlimited.
If you have an idea and have it thought through, you can develop it online and get feedback from others based on what they expect or want to see from your idea.
Basically there is a lot of ability of individuals to share information with one another and shape one another's ideas.
Because of this, people expect to be able to interact on your site/have some sort of control and if you don't let them, then you'll likely fail. You can't only think about what you want. You have to think about what your audience wants if you want them to keep coming back to your site. Reply to this
3/2/2009 4:56 PM
Daniel Whitfield wrote:
It seems that a website will not really be able to function or last for an extended period of time without having users that can interact. It looks like anywhere you go, there are normal people who are able to do something at least mildly productive with a website to which they aren't professionally connected, so the creation of new social sites is really an exercise in expanding creativity and functionality to allow users a near limitless horizon of possibilities with minimal effort. Reply to this
3/2/2009 4:56 PM
David Seltzer wrote:
Communication is one of the biggest things about Web 2.0. Everyone expects there to be at least some form of communication to share information with other people (example - would you buy something off of Amazon.com if you couldn't view the comments of reviews people had of a product?). The fact that we feed off of information like that off of websites means that communication is a HUGE thing you have to look into when designing a website/new business on the web. Reply to this
3/2/2009 4:57 PM
Michael Webber wrote:
The business of the web now requires a creative and robust sight for users. Reply to this
3/2/2009 4:57 PM
Shantia Grimes wrote:
I learned a little about the planning process to kind of figure out what services a target audience might want. Also made me think about what technological limits would need to be surpassed in order to get your ideas to work as intended. It also got me to thinking about how a new service would have to be monetized in order to stay in business. Reply to this
3/2/2009 4:58 PMWes Phelan wrote:
New ideas for social networks, which seem to be decreasing in number, that have a lot of potential, involve a lot of planning and resources that need to be acquired. The quicker these plans can be carried out, the better. Reply to this
3/2/2009 4:58 PM
Garrett Martin wrote:
New innovations that will catch on need to be dynamic and ever changing from the input of the people that use it. People will connect and share information over the internet to dynamically create new intellectual content.
The interface needs to be so simple that it doesn't require instructions to use it, yet pleasing to the eye so it is inviting to use.
People should be able to connect, share, and collaborate with each other in "no brainer" ways aren't overly complicated or too narrow.
There needs to be a way to effortlessly find other people related to what you're interested in instead of limiting everyone to just people they already know. In other words, there needs to be a primary feature to discover new people. Reply to this
3/2/2009 4:59 PM
Kao Te Hsu wrote:
The website designer or the company is just making an area or space for users to build up their own stuff. Users build up their own pages, chat with people, and get more users to use the website. The company only need to provide a creative area for users and they can make money from it. The business is not like buying or selling stuff anymore, but more like put those people with the same need together and make money from it. Reply to this
3/2/2009 5:00 PM
Albert Almanza wrote:
I found that the number one problem of web 2.0 is that nothing comes all up front. There are too many tools, design elements, ease of use problems, linking strategies, etc. to really be able to come up with something that even WORKS on the first pass. You'll make a page and realize that half of your features are hard to get to if it is even possible to get to them, a good bit of the others feel hidden, but if you fix this then the page looks cluttered and complicated, and yet you have more ideas of what you can put on the page.
The main problem is balancing the easiness and design that we want with all websites with the versatility and power that we all want. You want to be able to everything, from anywhere, find how to do it easily, and be able to do it immediately with no previous instructions on how to do it in the first place.
Talk about hard.... Websites must go through about 1000 passes before they're even ready to be CONSIDERED to be put up. Reply to this
3/2/2009 5:00 PMJason Oeltjen wrote:
Web 2.0 was originally a "design" and "visual" movement that began showing up when the internet transferred from uncommon usage to common and even saturated.
People began pouring a lot more time into things other than functionality because they were now dealing with the masses, not just nerds who wanted and needed their information fix.
Designing a social network allows for a glimpse into a lot of the features and interactivity that developed from the web 2.0 movement... allowing us to see just how much and how many it effects when we start to think about who will use it, why they'll use it, and what our service can offer them. Reply to this
3/2/2009 5:00 PM
Josh Dillingham wrote:
During the creation of our website, due to the simplicity, we did not encounter any web 2.0 influences. Our take on creating a website was actually going the other way with it, back to a basic site. Reply to this
3/2/2009 5:00 PM
Brian Wheeler wrote:
It seems that web 2.0 is now more about communication with other people. Be it your friends and family or other people who share your same interests. It is also a place to discover new things. Its not just about finding information anymore. There's a whole other world in web 2.0. Reply to this
3/2/2009 5:01 PMIsaac Murray wrote:
With Web 2.0, people are expecting a different level of presentation than what was seen in the so called days of Web 1.0. Users expect a higher level of design prowess and what is almost a fluid "widget-tized" customizable peripheral. The complexity of today's websites reflects the willingness for users to utilize more intricate, fine tuned information presentation methods. Web 2.0 also embodies the move towards multilevel social interaction that allows for global communication. People want to plug in to what they like, customize that presentation, and then share their passions with fellow users.
With that said, I personally believe that "Web 2.0" is a cliched term that represents a concept, originally pushed by designers, to create more visually appealing websites. Reply to this
3/2/2009 5:01 PM
Jacqueline Justice wrote:
In creating our social network, we realized how hard it is to get away from the standard web 2.0 features (comments, blogs, photo/video uploads, subscriptions, etc). Even though our website contained so much more than these aspects, it seems as if these capabilities can make or break a social network. People WANT to interact with other people and share their opinions, and essentially every feature our website had to offer enabled these aspects in some fashion- THAT is how people become apart of a site. Reply to this
3/2/2009 5:01 PM
Amanda May wrote:
There are many aspects to consider from a business perspective of creating a social network. In creating a foodle for class, I discovered the web to be more demanding with features, accessibility and interaction. When using the web individuals want an immediate response. They can achieve this response by connecting with individuals across the globe. With the variety of social networks available to users, networking is the basis of our information and current communication. This is why face book is so popular, and chatting online. We depend on the web for the future of our communication and its continuation to grow. Reply to this
3/2/2009 5:02 PM
Robert Reynolds wrote:
For me personally, creating the social network really broadened my perspective of the internet. There are social networks that target almost every interest out there, so to be successful in web 2.0, a site must really offer very unique and interactive features and come up with new and innovative things for people to see, do, create, and connect with one another.
Ultimately, creativity, having an open mind, and thinking outside the box are all very necessary when it comes to being successful in Web 2.0. Reply to this
3/2/2009 5:02 PM
Karyne Nguyen wrote:
Creating our social network of Foodle allowed me to step outside my passion for food and thoughtfully consider the perspective of someone who despises cooking and does not want to take time to cook; by being open to this point-of-view, I was able to implement my passion and innovate features that would appealing to anyone, especially the non-chef/cook.
With Web 2.0, catching people's eye and keeping them invested in your creation is so demonstrative of long-term success in the business. With this idea, our social network aimed to target people with various levels of cooking experience and please people who have never used a skillet, as well as those who want homemade, gourmet meals. Being able to translate my passion into the social network made the project really enjoyable and I quickly became enthusiastic that a site like this could succeed and open people up to cooking and food preparation. Reply to this
3/2/2009 5:02 PM
Alyssa Lee wrote:
Web 2.0 allows people to share more of various information (blogs, pictures, art, music). By creating these different aspects of sharing, websites have increased social interactions and communications. Another critical development regards the website expansion to user-defined web spaces. people can personalize their own web space by depicting what information to be shared and layout to be displayed. This allows people to project their identity (and monitor how much of it can be seen) via the web. Reply to this
3/2/2009 5:04 PM
Sara wrote:
In order to have a successful website and a good social network to be used by hundreds, thousands, or millions of people, you have to grab people's attraction to the site. The business works when more people visit the site and get to know more about it. In order to do that, the website has to have unique features to bring something new to the people. The website also has to be made easy for every person at any age to use it. simply, your business works if your target audience is large or specific. Reply to this
3/2/2009 5:04 PM
Evan Liaw wrote:
As discussed in class, the idea of web 2.0 is that the Internet is more than just a physical space, but a place where we can connect and share with the world. While monetizing the Internet is largely dominated by advertisements, which is essentially the selling of physical space on the Internet. It's slowly becoming possible to also monetize the connections described in the idea of web 2.0 as well. An example is Amazon.com who's model is based on the idea of connecting someone who has something they want to sell with someone who wants to buy it. Amazon essentially generates revenue by connecting these people together and then taking a commission from it. Just as web 2.0 is expanding the Internet to being more than just a physical space, perhaps the future of business on the Internet will find new ways to monetize the Internet and this idea of web 2.0. Reply to this
3/2/2009 5:04 PM
Whitney Carr wrote:
People expect interaction, but they want specified interaction. Pop-up blockers were invented because of the abuse of ads attacking you. Like Isaac said, there is an expectation for web 2.0. There is a balance that must be reached to be successful. Websites have progressed to immerse users in the site by interaction, but the right kind of interaction. Just enough, not too much. Reply to this
3/2/2009 5:04 PM
Skyler Tinker wrote:
The website that we developed for the assignment operated in such a way that was very similar to many OS's. Instead of having different pages of text that one could visit, we had those pages pop up in windows that could be moved and closed as needed. The idea is that you never leave the home site, and everything is right there and integrated for you.
This idea is the essence of Web 2.0. Our website contains a lot of "Web 1.0" textual information, yet it is presented in a way such that the user has full control over how it is presented. From the information that is displayed for users, to the background on the page, even to the layout of the windows in the browser, the user has full control.
Through creating this social network, I learned how much the Web 2.0 format appeals to me. It helps increase my level of interactivity with a site, and I like being in control of how data is displayed both to others and to myself. The idea of "running applications in a browser" really allows some web sites to obtain a level of interactivity, efficiency, and productivity that can be very beneficial and not available in Web 1.0. Reply to this
3/2/2009 5:52 PM
Michael Pope wrote:
I learned about the importance of interaction and collaboration between people on web 2.0, and how they're synonymous with social networks. Obviously no one is going to use a social network if you can't communicate with the people whose profiles you see. I also got some insight on the level of uniqueness required for a successful social network. Having unique features on a social network is probably the most important part because they're what attract people and makes them users; without uniqueness, social networks are just clones of each other. Reply to this
It's about focusing on the users' needs rather than the company's abilities. Emphasize content rather than interface.
Reply to this
Communication between users is different, more seamless. Website design is more smooth, visually appearing, more sophisticated. Activities conducted over the internet are simpler, easier to use, more user-friendly.
Web 1.0 was something static, "lets put up a web page." Now when you go to the internet there's a profile, a chat room, interaction. Thus turning it into a collaborative entity.
Reply to this
The insight I gained into the business of Web 2.0 was that all of it rides on the user. It depends greatly on social interaction, and businesses need to take that into account when creating their sites, and it is always changing, as a result of their users, i.e. that there's a collaboration between the users of the site and the business behind it.
Reply to this
Ads are a great way to raise easy revenue for the upkeep of the servers web 2.0 requires. Also, the main importance it to keep sites rather simple and easy to interact with, as opposed to throwing in 5 million features. Or at least, at the start you need to keep it simple, then can later develop complexity.
Reply to this
What you can do is almost completely unlimited.
If you have an idea and have it thought through, you can develop it online and get feedback from others based on what they expect or want to see from your idea.
Basically there is a lot of ability of individuals to share information with one another and shape one another's ideas.
Because of this, people expect to be able to interact on your site/have some sort of control and if you don't let them, then you'll likely fail. You can't only think about what you want. You have to think about what your audience wants if you want them to keep coming back to your site.
Reply to this
It seems that a website will not really be able to function or last for an extended period of time without having users that can interact. It looks like anywhere you go, there are normal people who are able to do something at least mildly productive with a website to which they aren't professionally connected, so the creation of new social sites is really an exercise in expanding creativity and functionality to allow users a near limitless horizon of possibilities with minimal effort.
Reply to this
Communication is one of the biggest things about Web 2.0. Everyone expects there to be at least some form of communication to share information with other people (example - would you buy something off of Amazon.com if you couldn't view the comments of reviews people had of a product?). The fact that we feed off of information like that off of websites means that communication is a HUGE thing you have to look into when designing a website/new business on the web.
Reply to this
The business of the web now requires a creative and robust sight for users.
Reply to this
I learned a little about the planning process to kind of figure out what services a target audience might want. Also made me think about what technological limits would need to be surpassed in order to get your ideas to work as intended. It also got me to thinking about how a new service would have to be monetized in order to stay in business.
Reply to this
New ideas for social networks, which seem to be decreasing in number, that have a lot of potential, involve a lot of planning and resources that need to be acquired. The quicker these plans can be carried out, the better.
Reply to this
New innovations that will catch on need to be dynamic and ever changing from the input of the people that use it. People will connect and share information over the internet to dynamically create new intellectual content.
The interface needs to be so simple that it doesn't require instructions to use it, yet pleasing to the eye so it is inviting to use.
People should be able to connect, share, and collaborate with each other in "no brainer" ways aren't overly complicated or too narrow.
There needs to be a way to effortlessly find other people related to what you're interested in instead of limiting everyone to just people they already know. In other words, there needs to be a primary feature to discover new people.
Reply to this
The website designer or the company is just making an area or space for users to build up their own stuff. Users build up their own pages, chat with people, and get more users to use the website. The company only need to provide a creative area for users and they can make money from it. The business is not like buying or selling stuff anymore, but more like put those people with the same need together and make money from it.
Reply to this
I found that the number one problem of web 2.0 is that nothing comes all up front. There are too many tools, design elements, ease of use problems, linking strategies, etc. to really be able to come up with something that even WORKS on the first pass. You'll make a page and realize that half of your features are hard to get to if it is even possible to get to them, a good bit of the others feel hidden, but if you fix this then the page looks cluttered and complicated, and yet you have more ideas of what you can put on the page.
The main problem is balancing the easiness and design that we want with all websites with the versatility and power that we all want. You want to be able to everything, from anywhere, find how to do it easily, and be able to do it immediately with no previous instructions on how to do it in the first place.
Talk about hard.... Websites must go through about 1000 passes before they're even ready to be CONSIDERED to be put up.
Reply to this
Web 2.0 was originally a "design" and "visual" movement that began showing up when the internet transferred from uncommon usage to common and even saturated.
People began pouring a lot more time into things other than functionality because they were now dealing with the masses, not just nerds who wanted and needed their information fix.
Designing a social network allows for a glimpse into a lot of the features and interactivity that developed from the web 2.0 movement... allowing us to see just how much and how many it effects when we start to think about who will use it, why they'll use it, and what our service can offer them.
Reply to this
During the creation of our website, due to the simplicity, we did not encounter any web 2.0 influences. Our take on creating a website was actually going the other way with it, back to a basic site.
Reply to this
It seems that web 2.0 is now more about communication with other people. Be it your friends and family or other people who share your same interests. It is also a place to discover new things. Its not just about finding information anymore. There's a whole other world in web 2.0.
Reply to this
With Web 2.0, people are expecting a different level of presentation than what was seen in the so called days of Web 1.0. Users expect a higher level of design prowess and what is almost a fluid "widget-tized" customizable peripheral. The complexity of today's websites reflects the willingness for users to utilize more intricate, fine tuned information presentation methods. Web 2.0 also embodies the move towards multilevel social interaction that allows for global communication. People want to plug in to what they like, customize that presentation, and then share their passions with fellow users.
With that said, I personally believe that "Web 2.0" is a cliched term that represents a concept, originally pushed by designers, to create more visually appealing websites.
Reply to this
In creating our social network, we realized how hard it is to get away from the standard web 2.0 features (comments, blogs, photo/video uploads, subscriptions, etc). Even though our website contained so much more than these aspects, it seems as if these capabilities can make or break a social network. People WANT to interact with other people and share their opinions, and essentially every feature our website had to offer enabled these aspects in some fashion- THAT is how people become apart of a site.
Reply to this
There are many aspects to consider from a business perspective of creating a social network. In creating a foodle for class, I discovered the web to be more demanding with features, accessibility and interaction. When using the web individuals want an immediate response. They can achieve this response by connecting with individuals across the globe. With the variety of social networks available to users, networking is the basis of our information and current communication. This is why face book is so popular, and chatting online. We depend on the web for the future of our communication and its continuation to grow.
Reply to this
For me personally, creating the social network really broadened my perspective of the internet. There are social networks that target almost every interest out there, so to be successful in web 2.0, a site must really offer very unique and interactive features and come up with new and innovative things for people to see, do, create, and connect with one another.
Ultimately, creativity, having an open mind, and thinking outside the box are all very necessary when it comes to being successful in Web 2.0.
Reply to this
Creating our social network of Foodle allowed me to step outside my passion for food and thoughtfully consider the perspective of someone who despises cooking and does not want to take time to cook; by being open to this point-of-view, I was able to implement my passion and innovate features that would appealing to anyone, especially the non-chef/cook.
With Web 2.0, catching people's eye and keeping them invested in your creation is so demonstrative of long-term success in the business. With this idea, our social network aimed to target people with various levels of cooking experience and please people who have never used a skillet, as well as those who want homemade, gourmet meals. Being able to translate my passion into the social network made the project really enjoyable and I quickly became enthusiastic that a site like this could succeed and open people up to cooking and food preparation.
Reply to this
Web 2.0 allows people to share more of various information (blogs, pictures, art, music). By creating these different aspects of sharing, websites have increased social interactions and communications. Another critical development regards the website expansion to user-defined web spaces. people can personalize their own web space by depicting what information to be shared and layout to be displayed. This allows people to project their identity (and monitor how much of it can be seen) via the web.
Reply to this
In order to have a successful website and a good social network to be used by hundreds, thousands, or millions of people, you have to grab people's attraction to the site. The business works when more people visit the site and get to know more about it. In order to do that, the website has to have unique features to bring something new to the people. The website also has to be made easy for every person at any age to use it. simply, your business works if your target audience is large or specific.
Reply to this
As discussed in class, the idea of web 2.0 is that the Internet is more than just a physical space, but a place where we can connect and share with the world. While monetizing the Internet is largely dominated by advertisements, which is essentially the selling of physical space on the Internet. It's slowly becoming possible to also monetize the connections described in the idea of web 2.0 as well. An example is Amazon.com who's model is based on the idea of connecting someone who has something they want to sell with someone who wants to buy it. Amazon essentially generates revenue by connecting these people together and then taking a commission from it. Just as web 2.0 is expanding the Internet to being more than just a physical space, perhaps the future of business on the Internet will find new ways to monetize the Internet and this idea of web 2.0.
Reply to this
People expect interaction, but they want specified interaction. Pop-up blockers were invented because of the abuse of ads attacking you. Like Isaac said, there is an expectation for web 2.0. There is a balance that must be reached to be successful. Websites have progressed to immerse users in the site by interaction, but the right kind of interaction. Just enough, not too much.
Reply to this
The website that we developed for the assignment operated in such a way that was very similar to many OS's. Instead of having different pages of text that one could visit, we had those pages pop up in windows that could be moved and closed as needed. The idea is that you never leave the home site, and everything is right there and integrated for you.
This idea is the essence of Web 2.0. Our website contains a lot of "Web 1.0" textual information, yet it is presented in a way such that the user has full control over how it is presented. From the information that is displayed for users, to the background on the page, even to the layout of the windows in the browser, the user has full control.
Through creating this social network, I learned how much the Web 2.0 format appeals to me. It helps increase my level of interactivity with a site, and I like being in control of how data is displayed both to others and to myself. The idea of "running applications in a browser" really allows some web sites to obtain a level of interactivity, efficiency, and productivity that can be very beneficial and not available in Web 1.0.
Reply to this
I learned about the importance of interaction and collaboration between people on web 2.0, and how they're synonymous with social networks. Obviously no one is going to use a social network if you can't communicate with the people whose profiles you see. I also got some insight on the level of uniqueness required for a successful social network. Having unique features on a social network is probably the most important part because they're what attract people and makes them users; without uniqueness, social networks are just clones of each other.
Reply to this