September 29th, 2005
More Web 2.0 Questions
by Joshua Porter | 
6 Comments | shortlink: http://bokardo.com/p/227
The explosive discussion about the definition of Web 2.0 raises more questions than it answers. That’s a good thing! We’re learning here. One facet of this discussion, however, that I would like to see more of is the value of Web 2.0 for developers. I assume more and more developers are hearing about Web 2.0 every day, but it’s not clear what’s in it for them.
It’s one thing to look at Amazon and say “they’re creating a really powerful platform”. It’s another to ask “what can I learn from Amazon that helps me build better applications?”. Defining Web 2.0 is fun, building it is hard. So while we’re still defining it I’m going to add some more developer-centered questions to the mix.
Note that users = people/customers/humans/folks/prosumers/etc. (whichever you prefer)
- How do my users value content?
- How do my users share content with others?
- Who do they share content with?
- Do my users interact with each other? If so, where and how? If not, why not, and would there be benefits to that?
- What answers do my users want to know?
- How can I create a data store in which trend-watching becomes possible?
- What trends are we seeing now, and what do we need to do to show more of them?
- Would releasing a developer API add value to our data store?
- How could other people find value in our data store?
These questions basically boil down to one:
How can I create an architecture of participation that adds value for both me and the people participating?
Going further, how else can developers help us represent our social lives online? There are many ways, and many levels of fidelity to aim for. Here are some simple examples, mostly in order, from most specific to most general:
- A product review at Amazon is a representation of a conversation between two people
- Jotspot Live is a representation of conversations between colleagues
- A star review at Amazon is a representation of collective group conversation
- Recommendation systems, in general, are representations of collective word-of-mouth
- Google Search is a representation of collective linking behavior of nearly everyone
- Email is a representation of conversations
- Typing is a representation of speech
- Words are representations of thought
So, in a sense Web 2.0 is not necessarily a new phenomenon, but an online representation of the human one.
Links to this Post
Comments
1. Ken 2:39pm, Thu 29th, 2005
Wanted to let you know that I tagged this article to del.icio.us under the blogoposium1 tag. It is most relevant to the discussion we have been having over the past few days, namely “Communicating the Ideas Behind Web 2.0″. Feel free to check out any details about the blogoposium.
2. Andrew 3:48pm, Thu 29th, 2005
“Going further, how else can developers represent our social lives online?”
Eew, don’t even try. The last thing I want is some programmer deciding he (and it is invariably a “he”) knows how to “represent” my social life online. In fact, the most appealing of the web 2.0 apps (Flickr, for one) have very few assumptions about “my social life” baked-in. On this I really agree with Merholz that it’s mostly about identifying ways to let go of control, not reifying behavior in code.
3. Josh 4:52pm, Thu 29th, 2005
On the contrary, Andrew. What you see as “very few assumptions” I see as the right assumptions about how to represent your social behavior.
In Flickr, you can designate people as “contacts”, “family”, or “friends”. Is this not a great representation of how we lead our lives?
The point is to make tools that allow us to represent our social lives, not define our social life for us.
4. Andrew 9:09am, Fri 30th, 2005
“Is this not a great representation of how we lead our lives?”
It is not. Does your entire set of relationships with others fall into one of three categories?
I agree with your last point in your comment: the goal is to let me represent my life, not to have some programmer define my social life for me. Which seems to me exactly opposite of what you said in your original post; or at least that was the way I read your original post.
5. Josh 9:32am, Fri 30th, 2005
You’re right, Andrew, my entire set of relationships with others do not fall into one of three categories. But those categories, I would say, satisfy my needs enough so that I know how to segment my relationships with people whose pictures I want to see. In other words, it’s good enough.
As you point out, we’re agreeing here. In no way am I talking about a complete representation of our lives online. But services like Flickr are providing us with tools to approximate bits and pieces, and no matter how small they are they are still a large leap from what we had only 2-3 years ago.
So no, I’m not going to stop living my real life in favor of some online version. But I am going to model my life there in some ways, as we do everyday with writing, emailing, photo sharing, etc.
BTW: I’ve amended my original post to reflect our discussion.
6. vanderwal 10:52am, Tue 4th, 2005
You need to include, “how do users reuse my information, or how would they like to”.
In talking with users over the past five to ten years, they do not fully distinguish beteen information they found and information they create. Both sets are “my information”. They do know the difference, but both sets are most often are treated the same in that it is information/media they have access to and will use them as they need.