5 ms·

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the web is really just a container. A container of infinite possibilities. In the beginning (Web 1.0), it wa

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the web is really just a container. A container of infinite possibilities. In the beginning (Web 1.0), it was one of static websites. Web 2.0 made it interactive, allowing for user input such as comments etc., which laid the foundation for the more recent explosion of walled-gardens and web-apps. While it's easy to celebrate the old and criticize the new, in the end nothing is intrinsically "good" or "bad". With the web being a container of possibilities, it means we're free to dream, design, and defend whatever it is that we want the web to be. That's my philosophical take anyway.

unconed 4y ago
Wat. Are you a teenager? Web 1.0 had user interaction in the form of forms, which made http get/post requests.
- samh748 4y ago
  HAhaha I'm 30, but damn that shows my lack of knowledge in tech! Oops! It's just my broad perception of 1.0 vs 2.0 from the things I've read. Embarrassing.
  - _zzaw 4y ago
    No, I think you were mostly correct. Submitting a form on a Web 1.0 site—typically search or guest books—was hardly an experience you’d call “interactive”, especially today. Every form submission required a refresh, and sites were usually very static. Web 2.0—and honestly, I’ve always thought these classifications were rather hazy—was where you started seeing the ability to submit/request data without requiring a page refresh. I remember Flickr as being a good example of that, with their dropdown menus, drag-and-drop UI, and smooth form submission. So while it’s technically true that Web 1.0 was in some limited sense interactive, I agree with your comment that 2.0 was where interactivity as we think of it really began, especially regarding forms. Also worth noting that if you look at how others define Web 2.0, a common theme is the focus on user-submitted content, which is consistent with your impression of what 2.0 was. (And to be clear, I’m hardly a teenager; I’m 40, remember 1.0 and 2.0 very well, and have spent more than half my life building both kinds of sites professionally.)

unconed 4y ago

Wat. Are you a teenager? Web 1.0 had user interaction in the form of forms, which made http get/post requests.

samh748 4y ago
HAhaha I'm 30, but damn that shows my lack of knowledge in tech! Oops! It's just my broad perception of 1.0 vs 2.0 from the things I've read. Embarrassing.
- _zzaw 4y ago
  No, I think you were mostly correct. Submitting a form on a Web 1.0 site—typically search or guest books—was hardly an experience you’d call “interactive”, especially today. Every form submission required a refresh, and sites were usually very static. Web 2.0—and honestly, I’ve always thought these classifications were rather hazy—was where you started seeing the ability to submit/request data without requiring a page refresh. I remember Flickr as being a good example of that, with their dropdown menus, drag-and-drop UI, and smooth form submission. So while it’s technically true that Web 1.0 was in some limited sense interactive, I agree with your comment that 2.0 was where interactivity as we think of it really began, especially regarding forms. Also worth noting that if you look at how others define Web 2.0, a common theme is the focus on user-submitted content, which is consistent with your impression of what 2.0 was. (And to be clear, I’m hardly a teenager; I’m 40, remember 1.0 and 2.0 very well, and have spent more than half my life building both kinds of sites professionally.)