4 ms·

> There's a framing error in this reasoning. The technology of Web 1.0 did not exist in limited scope because it was only suitable for a small subsection of hum

> There's a framing error in this reasoning. The technology of Web 1.0 did not exist in limited scope because it was only suitable for a small subsection of humanity. It was only being used by a small subsection because that was the developmental stage of the web. One could say (disingenuously) that at the time Web 1.0 was such a successful technology it was being used by 100 percent of web users! Do you have any proof of those assertions? You're strident in defending your ideology but this claim seems fantastically unsubstantiated. I remember trying to help parents and non technical friends use Web 1.0. they'd get URLs wrong, forget which TLDs a site hung off, clicked on phishing emails, and deal with hundreds of pop-up ads. Web 2.0, as much as this wasn't a buzzword, was a strict increase in usability for every non-technical person I know.

nonrandomstring 5y ago
> Do you have any proof of those assertions? You're strident in defending your ideology It's a logical argument with one premise - that fewer people used the internet in the past than today - which I hope you can accept without further proof.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> and deal with hundreds of pop-up ads. Web 2.0 was a strict increase in usability for every non-technical person I know. I have no idea precisely what you are calling "Web 2.0" because in my mind, the technology elements of Web 2.0 outlined on the wikipedia page definitely have absolutely nothing to do with "getting URLs wrong", "forgetting TLDs". Changes from the same time period (around 1999) that were not typically considered to be part of "Web 2.0" were also responsible for a dramatic increase in the prevalence of popup ads. I think you're talking about something entirely different.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  It's tricky because I don't know what Web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 etc even mean since they're poorly defined. Generally I see the anti-Web2.0 digital vegan perspectives to be about opposing Javascript. I maintain that the Web after widespread Javascript was strictly more usable for non-technical people. I disagree that the pre-JS web was somehow incomplete or in a developer preview.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Javascript is fine for web-based interactivity. What people object to is using JS to publish simple documents, that's what HTML and CSS is for.
  - nonrandomstring 5y ago
    I see you are a stalwart defender of JavaScript :) > Web after widespread JavaScript was strictly more usable for non-technical people. I suppose that's true. The "web" now has more reach, and generally user interfaces have improved, and JavaScript has had many positive effects on that improvement. But none of these things are necessarily causative, and may be more or less coincidences along the timeline. JavaScript solves some issues to do with presentation, and allowing web browsers to compute things instead of needing a server to. It also allows dangerous security holes, browser malware, spying on the user and a host of "bad things". So whether the overall experience is an "improvement" cannot be easily argued. There are some "Web Applications" like browser based videoconferencing that would be impossible without JavaScript. Whether these belong "in the browser" is debatable. However the misuse of JavaScript to lazily construct or decorate web content is a growing problem that is denounced by all sorts of people, including web developers and ordinary users who find their pages take ages to load, or function sporadically, or leak information. Have you used Gemini? Give it a try. Many non-technical people find it very "usable" and it is a technology on-par with Web 1.0 in many ways. > Generally I see the anti-Web2.0 digital vegan perspectives to be about opposing JavaScript. :) The DV arguments are much bigger and broader than JavaScript. But to put it in that context for you; most people like myself argue that JavaScript and other "web technologies" have transformed it into something that isn't the web any longer. It doesn't function as an information publishing and distribution system. It's still called "The Web" by dint of evolutionary lineage, but in reality has transformed into something unrecognisable (a surveillance engine and content pushing system). The simple, safe and widely understood function (that some here are calling Web 1.0) is now forced to live alongside something else with no clear boundaries or distinctions between them, and no sense of what parts of that technology are operating when you visit a site. This is very bad for everyone regardless of the usability gains obtained. I hope that makes sense.
  - webmaven 5y ago

nonrandomstring 5y ago

> Do you have any proof of those assertions? You're strident in defending your ideology It's a logical argument with one premise - that fewer people used the internet in the past than today - which I hope you can accept without further proof.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

> and deal with hundreds of pop-up ads. Web 2.0 was a strict increase in usability for every non-technical person I know. I have no idea precisely what you are calling "Web 2.0" because in my mind, the technology elements of Web 2.0 outlined on the wikipedia page definitely have absolutely nothing to do with "getting URLs wrong", "forgetting TLDs". Changes from the same time period (around 1999) that were not typically considered to be part of "Web 2.0" were also responsible for a dramatic increase in the prevalence of popup ads. I think you're talking about something entirely different.

Karrot_Kream 5y ago
It's tricky because I don't know what Web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 etc even mean since they're poorly defined. Generally I see the anti-Web2.0 digital vegan perspectives to be about opposing Javascript. I maintain that the Web after widespread Javascript was strictly more usable for non-technical people. I disagree that the pre-JS web was somehow incomplete or in a developer preview.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Javascript is fine for web-based interactivity. What people object to is using JS to publish simple documents, that's what HTML and CSS is for.
- nonrandomstring 5y ago
  I see you are a stalwart defender of JavaScript :) > Web after widespread JavaScript was strictly more usable for non-technical people. I suppose that's true. The "web" now has more reach, and generally user interfaces have improved, and JavaScript has had many positive effects on that improvement. But none of these things are necessarily causative, and may be more or less coincidences along the timeline. JavaScript solves some issues to do with presentation, and allowing web browsers to compute things instead of needing a server to. It also allows dangerous security holes, browser malware, spying on the user and a host of "bad things". So whether the overall experience is an "improvement" cannot be easily argued. There are some "Web Applications" like browser based videoconferencing that would be impossible without JavaScript. Whether these belong "in the browser" is debatable. However the misuse of JavaScript to lazily construct or decorate web content is a growing problem that is denounced by all sorts of people, including web developers and ordinary users who find their pages take ages to load, or function sporadically, or leak information. Have you used Gemini? Give it a try. Many non-technical people find it very "usable" and it is a technology on-par with Web 1.0 in many ways. > Generally I see the anti-Web2.0 digital vegan perspectives to be about opposing JavaScript. :) The DV arguments are much bigger and broader than JavaScript. But to put it in that context for you; most people like myself argue that JavaScript and other "web technologies" have transformed it into something that isn't the web any longer. It doesn't function as an information publishing and distribution system. It's still called "The Web" by dint of evolutionary lineage, but in reality has transformed into something unrecognisable (a surveillance engine and content pushing system). The simple, safe and widely understood function (that some here are calling Web 1.0) is now forced to live alongside something else with no clear boundaries or distinctions between them, and no sense of what parts of that technology are operating when you visit a site. This is very bad for everyone regardless of the usability gains obtained. I hope that makes sense.
- webmaven 5y ago