3 ms·

Web 2.0 was the application of AJAX and/or database back-ends to the already functional web. This had already started to happen by the time the "Web 2.0" monike

Web 2.0 was the application of AJAX and/or database back-ends to the already functional web. This had already started to happen by the time the "Web 2.0" moniker came to be. "You mean we can blog, or click-and-drag Google Maps? OK, great." Any naysaying was about the term "Web 2.0" - was this really a "second release" of the web? - and not about the technologies already in play. Web3, on the other hand, appears to be a whole lot of horseshit that is going away now that it's no longer essentially free to borrow money.

narag 4y ago
Web 2.0 was the application of AJAX and/or database back-ends to the already functional web. Ajax and database were commonplace before. The 2.0 moniker was about "social" (user generated content.)
- jimjimjim 4y ago
  Almost, "social" was generally after 2.0. An example of 2.0 was wikipedia. "social" was connecting with other people and content came after they needed to do something more than just poking them
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - narag 4y ago
    Wikipedia itself defines 2.0 as social. What you call social is the commercialization of social (algorithmic social?), that might be how it's understood today, but then the main idea was user generated content, at least that's how they sold it. But yes, they also used "dynamic vs. static" that, like I wrote in the previous comment, was already in use... it's like they were conflating everything new and good vs. the old and bad. Actually it was very confusing, round corners... almost is right, no wonder they've chosen 3.0 to sell this new gold rush. Edit: I'm afraid I'm taking for granted that people remembers this, but it's possible that a good portion of you weren't even born. Web 2.0 was something like "you should adopt the Web 2.0 ways in your web presence" being sold to all kind of companies. You have an online shop? You should include a support forum where users can share their experience with your products. In other words: a "web page" is not enough, you need the whole pack. Sometimes it made sense, sometimes it didn't. As with many of this trends, it used to sound a little cult-ish at times.
- almost 4y ago
  You're both wrong, Web 2.0 was about rounded corners. I know I was there!
  - narag 4y ago
    Honestly that's more accurate and makes more sense than the explanations I remember from the era.
  - fein 4y ago
    To be fair we did have rounded corners, but they were a bitch to make. Possibly part of the reason that tables got well overused.
    - almost 4y ago
      red-corner-tr.gif

narag 4y ago

Web 2.0 was the application of AJAX and/or database back-ends to the already functional web. Ajax and database were commonplace before. The 2.0 moniker was about "social" (user generated content.)

jimjimjim 4y ago
Almost, "social" was generally after 2.0. An example of 2.0 was wikipedia. "social" was connecting with other people and content came after they needed to do something more than just poking them
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- narag 4y ago
  Wikipedia itself defines 2.0 as social. What you call social is the commercialization of social (algorithmic social?), that might be how it's understood today, but then the main idea was user generated content, at least that's how they sold it. But yes, they also used "dynamic vs. static" that, like I wrote in the previous comment, was already in use... it's like they were conflating everything new and good vs. the old and bad. Actually it was very confusing, round corners... almost is right, no wonder they've chosen 3.0 to sell this new gold rush. Edit: I'm afraid I'm taking for granted that people remembers this, but it's possible that a good portion of you weren't even born. Web 2.0 was something like "you should adopt the Web 2.0 ways in your web presence" being sold to all kind of companies. You have an online shop? You should include a support forum where users can share their experience with your products. In other words: a "web page" is not enough, you need the whole pack. Sometimes it made sense, sometimes it didn't. As with many of this trends, it used to sound a little cult-ish at times.
almost 4y ago
You're both wrong, Web 2.0 was about rounded corners. I know I was there!
- narag 4y ago
  Honestly that's more accurate and makes more sense than the explanations I remember from the era.
- fein 4y ago
  To be fair we did have rounded corners, but they were a bitch to make. Possibly part of the reason that tables got well overused.
  - almost 4y ago
    red-corner-tr.gif