January 17th, 2006

Why Zeldman’s Web 3.0 Misses the Mark

In Web 3.0, Jeffrey Zeldman writes a long missive on the subject of Web 2.0. He writes:

“To you who are toiling over an AJAX- and Ruby-powered social software product, good luck, God bless, and have fun. Remember that 20 other people are working on the same idea. So keep it simple, and ship it before they do, and maintain your sense of humor whether you get rich or go broke. Especially if you get rich. Nothing is more unsightly than a solemn multi-millionaire.

To you who feel like failures because you spent last year honing your web skills and serving clients, or running a business, or perhaps publishing content, you are special and lovely, so hold that pretty head high, and never let them see the tears.”

Presumably Zeldman wrote this piece for the sweet spot of readers who love to push back on any idea they feel is marketing-driven. And since O’Reilly Media coined the term it is, in part, marketing-driven. In all the talks that I’ve had about Web 2.0 there are definitely some people who resent this, and despite anything I might say, will continue to do so. I accept that. Just like the others who have done so before him, Zeldman will definitely get the crowd cheering.

But I would like to remind that same crowd that everyone has an agenda to push, be it O’Reilly or Zeldman or Porter. For the past few years following Zeldman’s release of his book Designing with Web Standards, he’s been writing about and promoting, well, designing with web standards. Could Zeldman be criticizing O’Reilly for doing what he does himself?

Every person has their own ideas, and each believes in them as they should.

As we all know, the problem with web standards, like all technology, is that they don’t make your product more usable, desirable, or compelling on their own. No, we need innovative designers for that. Sure, web standards make it easier for developers to create sites, but convincing developers to use them doesn’t make users love your site. Validation might very well be the biggest red herring in design today.

Innovating with Web 2.0 ideas like creating an architecture of participation, however, might just make users love your site.

There’s a big difference between ideas and the people who wrongly abuse them. To me, it looks like Jeffrey doesn’t like the people who evangelize Web 2.0 as being the greatest thing since sliced bread, the cure for headaches, and the best get rich scheme since Ponzi. Dash of Ajax, pinch of Ruby on Rails, and you’re about to flip. Of course, Zeldman is right about this: everyone is sick of these people. But there are also groups of people who are much more sane than that, and who follow Web 2.0 reasonably, pointing out that it’s not about the technology or the get-rich schemes, but about creating useful applications for real people.

But instead, Zeldman dismisses the idea of Web 2.o itself, and the subthemes which the designers at Flickr and 37Signals so obviously follow and, I might add, help teach us about. These things, as Zeldman himself points out, ain’t so bad after all:

“The best and most famous of these new web products (i.e. the two I just mentioned) foster community and collaboration, offering new or improved modes of personal and business interaction. By virtue of their virtues, they own their categories, which is good for the creators, because they get paid.

It is also good for our industry, because the prospect of wealth inspires smart developers who once passively took orders to start thinking about usability and design, and to try to solve problems in a niche they can own. In so doing, some of them may create jobs and wealth. And even where the payday is smaller, these developers can raise the design and usability bar. This is good for everyone. If consumers can choose better applications that cost less or are free, then the web works better, and clients are more likely to request good (usable, well-designed) work instead of the usual schlock.”

Grab the RSS Feed

Comments ( 8 Responses so far )

Pingback: Web 3.0? » Web 2.0 Blog

1. kevin on January 17th, 2006 (Comment) #

Web two point 0h!
BS. It is the same stuff that has plagued every other movement. It reminds me of the Song “How do you Afford your rock N Roll lifestyle” by the band CAKE. The lyrics go: You got the Tshirt to prove that you heard of them first…

Markets are conversations…The real goal should be to provide real value and have real interaction. If you provide value and communicate with your market not to them or at them, enable your market and the conversations open up your API’s the end results will speak for themselves.

The Internet is no longer a place of places; it is a river of micro content pushed and aggregated and a big huge mess of conversations.

And in the end, everything is search…the discrete event of that user’s desire line.

You better make sure you are part of that users search result, or you better be part of that user’s conversation.

2. CM Harrington on January 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

Sure, web standards make it easier for developers to create sites, but convincing developers to use them doesn’t make users love your site. Validation might very well be the biggest red herring in design today.

While this snippit was only tangential to the point of your entry, it especially rang true. I think what a lot of people miss when they talk about web standards, is that their use often it makes it more difficult to create a site in the short-term. You pointed out that using web standards doesn’t inherently make your site compelling.

Using web standards was never about humans. Web standards is about making human-readable content more machine readable. Good websites are about people.

3. Josh on January 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

To be fair, CM, that rant came from the same frustration that Zeldman felt about Web 2.0. So many developers spend time pushing the standards banner instead of talking about how to make compelling web sites that I’ve nearly stopped talking about the topic at all. The problem lies in the fact that it is entirely possible to create a perfectly valid, standards-based site that is completely useless…

And the most successful sites out there, the Amazons, Googles, and eBays…well they aren’t standards-based at all. Does that mean their developers are unprofessional? Hardly. It means they know what to focus on, and it usually isn’t web standards.

But you’re right, my dig against web standards was tangential. It’s not that I think they’re bad, it’s just that I see a lot of similarities between O’Reilly/Web 2.0 and Zeldman/web standards. To each his own…and that’s why I felt Zeldman was being unfair in his dig against O’Reilly.

4. CM Harrington on January 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

My original comment was to point out that I totally agreed with your statement, but I also wished to elaborate the point, as I feel it is often overlooked. I think we’re on the same page with this.

5. Dion Hinchcliffe on January 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

Joshua,

Great post and glad to see someone standing up for great ideas in building software.

I do wish the hypesters would stop, but in the end, they might still be doing more good than harm.

Anyway, I just wanted to tell you that I gave you full props for this post and your position in this article on the Ajax Developer’s Journal.

Best,

Dion

6. Mike Minski on March 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

I know this post is old but:

Sorry but I think I got to defend the Z Man. I don’t think that the point of web standards is just answering the question “Does it validate?”.

The point of standards are that fact that we can better communicate by creating technologies that are BASED of these standards as a means to communicate.

My stuff looking the same and working correctly on a PDA, any Browser, PSP, or whatever the heck else comes down the pipe is a VERY good thing.

Zeldman was a designer first and foremost. He raised a voice and awareness out of frustration and sought to make a better web. Putting him in a category where he is compared to a person, persons, or events where marketing and money come first and giving information comes second is totally wrong.

7. Josh on March 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

I think you make a strong point, Mike. Where I don’t agree with Zeldman is where he’s writing about, holding events about, and profitting from web standards while criticizing Tim O’Reilly for the same in regards to Web 2.0. It’s the same strategy…write about what interests you, create demand, sell event seats.

It’s a good strategy, really, but they’re both amazing similar in the way they do it. I don’t think Zeldman was fair to criticize O’Reilly.

You’re right to point out my criticism of web standards however. I overstated my case. In fact, I believe I did this in the same frustration that Zeldman wrote Web 3.0…it’s the overhyping and overfocus on something (standards/Web 2.0) that frustrate, not really the topic itself.

Why Zeldman’s Web 3.0 Misses the Mark

Comments ( 8 Responses so far )

Add Your Comment

Preview...