what makes Web 2.0 applications unique?Web 2.0 According to O’ReillyOutlineDrawing on ReadingsDisclaimer (2.0)Web 2.0: Hypertext by Any Other Name?Vannevar Bush | MemexTed Nelson | “Hypertext”Lippman, MIT | Aspen Movie MapVision of hypertext/hypermediaAspirations of Hypertext | Millard & RossSlide 12Aspirations | SearchWeb 2.0 | SearchSlide 15Aspirations | Structure & ContentWeb 2.0 | Structure & ContentSlide 18Slide 19Slide 20Aspirations | Dynamic / AdaptiveWeb 2.0 | Dynamic / AdaptiveSlide 23Slide 24Slide 25Aspirations | VersioningWeb 2.0 | VersioningSlide 28Aspirations | AuthoringWeb 2.0 | AuthoringSlide 31Slide 32Slide 33How do the Applications Stack Up?Which of these aspirations do Web 2.0 apps fulfill?What other aspects of modern web apps aren’t covered here?Some QuestionsO’Reilly | Classifying Web 2.0 AppsSlide 39An ExerciseSlide 41PowerPoint PresentationBlogs, Wikis, & BeyondBlurring the Distinctions Between Authors and ReadersBlogs | Accumulating and Digesting InformationFrequency of Link and Quote Sources in Selected Topical BlogsOther Models of Accumulating InformationJill Walker | Feral HypertextA Few Final Questionswhat makes Web 2.0 applications unique?30 October 2006Wesley WillettCS260Web 2.0 According to O’Reilly•“Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an "architecture of participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.” - Tim O'Reilly October 01, 2005Outline•From Early Hypertext to Web 2.0–Implementing aspirations of hypertext pioneers–What “2.0” adds that “1.0” lacked–A group discussion exercise•Authorship and Information Aggregation in Blogs, Wikis, and Beyond (time permitting)Drawing on Readings•Millard, D. E. and Ross, M. 2006. Web 2.0: Hypertext by Any Other Name?. In HT’06.•Carter, S. 2005. The Role of the Author in Topical Blogs. In CHI 2005.•Walker, J. 2005. Feral Hypertext. In HT’05.Disclaimer (2.0)Web 2.0: Hypertext by Any Other Name?Vannevar Bush | MemexAs We May Think - 1945Ted Nelson | “Hypertext” 1965Doug Engelbart | oNLine System“Mother of all Demos” - 1968Lippman, MIT | Aspen Movie Map1st hypermedia system - 1978Vision of hypertext/hypermedia•A non-linear medium of information•Not just the WWW•To look at:–How well do “Web 2.0” systems implement/refine “ideal” hypertext/hypermedia models? –How are they better than “Web 1.0”?–An interesting lens through which to examine what makes these new systems unique, useful.Aspirations of Hypertext | Millard & RossSearchStructureAdaptiveVersioningAuthoring5 major categoriesAspirations of Hypertext | Millard & RossAs we step through:•What systems realize these aspirations?•How well do they do so?•What are the implications for how we use these systems?Aspirations | Search•Content •Context•StructuralWeb 2.0 | Search•Content: Explicit text search (Prevalent in 1.0)Web 2.0 | Search•Context: Implicating tags and other metadata •Structural: Not commonly seen. Examples?Aspirations | Structure & Content•Typed n-ary links•Composition•Extended navigation structures•User TrailsWeb 2.0 | Structure & Content•Typed n-ary links: Only in research systems?Web 2.0 | Structure & Content•Composition: ex) Flickr photo collectionsWeb 2.0 | Structure & Content•Extended navigation structures: ex) last.fm Tag RadioWeb 2.0 | Structure & Content•User Trails: ex) AmazonAspirations | Dynamic / Adaptive•Content •Structures•Computation over the network•PersonalizationWeb 2.0 | Dynamic / Adaptive•Content: –Low-level support with php, javascript, etc.–Higher-level paradigms like AJAX–ex) much of the modern webWeb 2.0 | Dynamic / Adaptive•Structures: ex) Flickr Exploreex) Digg SpyWeb 2.0 | Dynamic / Adaptive•Computation over the network: ex) web-based productivity apps.Web 2.0 | Dynamic / Adaptive•Personalization: ex) My Yahoo!, Everything!Aspirations | Versioning •Entity•NetworkWeb 2.0 | Versioning•Entity - Wikis, but not much else.Web 2.0 | Versioning•Network: twiki, etc.Also, versioning entire apps incrementally–“End of the software release cycle.”Aspirations | Authoring •Private Annotation•Public Annotation•Global Collaboration•Restricted Collaboration•ExtensibilityWeb 2.0 | Authoring•Private Annotation: ex) primitive blogs, editing basic htmlWeb 2.0 | Authoring•Public Annotation: ex) blogging + commentsWeb 2.0 | Authoring•Global Collaboration: ex) review/commendation systemsex) WikipediaWeb 2.0 | Authoring•Extensibility: Public APIshttp://programmableweb.com/apisMillard and Ross, HT06How do the Applications Stack Up?Which of these aspirations do Web 2.0 apps fulfill?Content SearchContext SearchStructural SearchTyped n-ary linksCompositionExtending Navigation StructuresUser TrailsDynamic ContentDynamic StructuresComputation over Network PersonalizationVersioningPrivate AnnotationsPublic AnnotationsRestricted CollaborationGlobal Collaboration ExtensibilityWhat other aspects of modern web apps aren’t covered here? •Millard & Ross only look at Flickr, a few wikis/blogs•What about social networks? •Doesn’t address interface richnessSome Questions•Which of these aspirations do specific web apps fulfill?•How much of this is application dependent?–Are some of Millard & Ross’ ideals not useful or practical for many systems?•Are these attributes useful criteria to consider when classifying, analyzing, and designing web applications?O’Reilly | Classifying Web 2.0 Apps •Another very different way of grouping these applications.•“A hierarchy of ‘Web 2.0-ness’.” http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/07/levels_of_the_game.htmlO’Reilly | Classifying Web 2.0 Apps •Level 0: App would work as well offline from a local data cache–ex) MapQuest•Level 1: App can and does exist offline, but gains features online–ex) Writely •Level 2: App could exist offline, but uniquely benefits by being online–ex) Flickr•Level 3: App could only exist on the