|
 Web 2.0. That is the term in vogue, the promise of a new web, a revolution as a new version of the Internet. Phenomenon based on a real technological change and a break of scale associated growth in the number of users or recovery marketing rafraichies older technology with a new public enthusiasm, as François regretted Briatte, Francois Hodierne or Olivier Meunier? The Web 2.0 foreshadows he only 2.0 a bubble?
Difficult to understand also what is this web 2.0 that everyone is talking about, both definitions seem to oppose. As emphasized by the convener of Homo-Numéricus: "It is clear that this is the same phenomenon, but the multiple dimensions. Some insist on the technical aspect, the other on the editorial practices, on the other still on the
sociological dimension. "On the one hand, he is seen as the changeover of technology to services, on the other hand it represents a new network of social interaction. In both cases,however, it places the user, and its relations with others, rather than the content or machines, in the centre of the Internet. The Web 2.0 is resolutely relational.
The editor recalls Tim O'reilly certainly the best from where the formula to its origin, the term "web 2.0" capture the common feeling that it was going something qualitatively different on the Web today . For him, as the former editor of Wired,Kevin Kelly, the key to success in this new phase of the evolution of the web lies in the
collective intelligence. "Web 2.0 based on a set of design templates : Architectural more intelligent systems that allow people to use them, business models that make possible lightweight syndication and cooperation of data and services… Web 2.0 is the time when people realize that it is not the software that makes the web, but services! "
Seen by technicians from the Internet, the "new" web aims to make web sites understandable by machines via a set of technologies (in a nutshell, those of the "semantic web") that allow for aggregating or share services and content, to recast the interfaces, and so on. Seen by designers, Web 2.0 talk about improving the user
experience. Thus, for Frederick Cavazza, a specialist in usability and ergonomics, the web 2.0 combines, on the one hand, improved user interfaces and on the other, more flexible architectures, communication protocols more open (web services ), a further interoperability… Web 2.0 is based on a multitude of small improvements in technology (AJAX revolution, as recently told Wired), ergonomics (rich interfaces), semantic (microformats)…that give the results of a flexible to use as NetVibes for example, an aggregator online using these techniques.
Who should ultimately Web 2.0, wondered when the consultant "usability" Peter Merholz? For computers, crying as Jeff Bezos of Amazon, or to users that it confers a power again? Joshua Porter himself firmly on the side of users: technologically, nothing essential has changed on the internet for 10 years . The essence of the "new web" is what people do today. For him, the Web 2.0 is the sharing of information, based on open databases that allow other users to use them.
Dannah Boyd, a sociologist and researcher at Yahoo!, Is less interested in the distinction machine / human as the "glocalization" glocalization is when a product is also suitable global to the local, when he returns to globalisation its social dimension. By putting forward, for example, Folksonomies that can add keywords to the content, or the role of the remix, it is interested in "new structures of emerging network structures global and local." The Web 2.0 gives people the ability to locate, organize, create and share information in a way that is both personal and broadly accessible. It should be understood as a "structural change in the flow of information".
For Ian Davis, finally, the Web 2.0 is an attitude, a philosophy of openness social whose goal is to relinquish control over individual things for the benefit of the participation of the greatest number.
For all, the Web 2.0 is a platform for innovation which is a sort of a web operating system. Richard Marcus, Web 2.0 Explorer, puts everyone agrees: whether those technicians, sociologists, web designers, philosophers, educators, businessmen… all definitions of Web 2.0 are, as pointed out also that Richard MacManus has identified many.
"The Web 2.0 is social, is open (or it should), it lets you control your data, he mixes theglobal withthe local.The Web 2.0 corresponds to new interfaces -new ways to search and access content. The Web 2.0 is a platform -and not just or developers create applications like Gmail or Flickr. The Web 2.0 is a platform ready to receive
educators, the media, politics, communities, for practically everyone
in fact! […] Web 2.0 is all that and not let anyone tell you that this
is one of those definitions. The Web 2.0 talk people, when the web down
to them.
In his excellent article "Web 2.0: the power behind the hype" ( "Web 2.0: The Power Behind the Hype"), Jared M. webdesigner Spool points in the
" same direction: Web 2.0 is not one thing, but a collection of approaches, all of which converge on a world of new developments. These
approaches, including API, RSS, Folksonomies, Social networks… offer suddenly creators of applications a new way of approaching problems with results étonnemment
effective.
The Web 2.0 is not a technical revolution only accessible to developers. It is based on easyto-use tools centered on the user.I might add, on the user network. Because this individual is not fragmented, but well connected to communities that are his.
The flexibility of the concept embraces a bit all the innovations of the current web in regenerating the attraction. A bit like the modern hunt modern. Just as new next-generation Internet hunting the next generation Internet, himself chasing the Internet… While allowing everyone to coexist.
In this new beginning, in this new wave of reappropriation of the web, does it not simply see that the Internet will eventually become a horizon where projecting its expectations. That web is no longer a technological adventure, but a human adventure.
|
