5 ms·
Wasn't Web 1.0 in a time before ads, or, depending on site, of banner ads and paid search placements that Google, sought to end? And Web 2.0 defined by remixin
by zhte415 3y ago
Wasn't Web 1.0 in a time before ads, or, depending on site, of banner ads and paid search placements that Google, sought to end?
And Web 2.0 defined by remixing, RSS, Torrents in the mainstream, Twitter, Flickr, Youtube and many more less acquired today?
I struggle to put the silod and gated repositories of members', and of non-members, knowledge and social interaction in the 'Web 2.0' bucket.
[Edit: The term webX.Y might not even apply much anymore. Quite a lot of the world is app-first where websites are an anachronism, an out-dated concept where a web browser may not be knowingly opened for a month, if ever. For many, the web is dead or not even known; today, for plural manys, it's all AppLand.]
- richardjam73 3y agoWeb 1.0 needs to reload the entire page from the server to update data on the page. Web 2.0 allowed pages to update content without reloading by using AJAX and DOM manipulation.
- Dan42 3y agoNo. Web 1.0 was one-to-many publishing, the direct translation to the web of existing pre-web business models. Thus "1.0", the first iteration based on known/previous models. Web 2.0 was many-to-many publishing, user-generated-content, stuff that wasn't possible or even conceivable prior to the web. Thus "2.0", the second iteration based on characteristics unique/native to the web. Honestly, people need to stop redefining those terms.
- richardjam73 3y agoMany to many publishing existed before the Internet. It doesn't even need computers.