February 10th
On Web as Platform
“the integrated DLA platform wars have begun!”
TAG: Web 2.0
February 9th
On Googlemendations
Noah Brier, in Capturing Attention:
“When you get right down to it, Google is a giant recommendation engine.”
February 9th
Dynamic Reading Lists
“There are plenty of RSS aggregators that allow you to import OPML files as a quick way of subscribing to a large number of feeds, but these are basically a static form of subscription. BlogBridge, on the other hand, is able to stay in synch with the original OPML.”
I’ve been using Blogbridge for a few days now, after talking about them with Adam over sushi, and I can say that dynamic OPML reading lists are really cool. However, because they are OPML they are working at the feed level, and at this point I think I’m more interested in the post level.
Adam has set up a dynamic OPML reading list of Tech.memeorandum created from an hourly check-in of the popular meme tracker site. So, every hour the OPML updates to show all the blogs that have bubbled to the homepage of memeorandum. So this is totally cool.
However, the blogs got there because of some really interesting post, because they’re somehow related to the top stories of the day. In other words, the blogs themselves may or may not be interesting to me other than their one, attention-getting post. So OPML might not be the best solution at this level. So the question is: are reading lists dynamic? Or is it simply news headlines that are?
Going forward, my guess is that we’ll be more interested in the post-level relevance, as opposed to feed-level relevance. Or, perhaps that’s easy for me to say because I already feel like I have enough feeds to read (about 200). But I think it makes sense that way, because we read many, many more individual posts than we acquire new feeds, and we’re more interested in the relevance of the information than what feed they come from. Acquiring new feeds is slow, reading the news is not.
February 8th
On Advocating for Users
Dave Rogers in Web 2.0: Mistaking the Forest for the Trees?:
“Web 2.0 thus demands greater attention to end-users than ever before. Just as its technological hurdles challenge developers, Web 2.0 requires more of user advocates. We will soon find ourselves besieged for deeper insight into the minds and practices of end-users.”
Wow. Just yesterday I added the term “advocate” to my about section on the home page. Fancy that!
The rest of Dave’s piece is spot on, as he’s focusing on designers focusing on users. I think I’ll add it to the Introduction to Web 2.0.
February 2nd
On Friends
Boy, this one is right up my current alley (see yesterday):
Richard MacManus interviews Digg founder Kevin Rose:
“The problem with rating individual users is that it really doesn’t scale well. We have 160,000 registered users and it would be impossible for everyone to go through and directly rate everyone else. What we have created, which is quickly becoming a popular way to discover new stories, is our friends system. This enables you to create a group of trusted users who read each others articles and trust each others content.”
February 1st
On Open Ideas
Ed Batista on Wikipedia:
“Of course we sacrifice accuracy at the micro level–with no editorial apparatus constraining the system, anything you read at any given moment could be total bullshit. But in a free, open and fluid intellectual market, bad ideas will eventually be driven out by better ones–and sooner rather than later.”
January 24th
In the Blogging World You Don’t Have Sex on the First Date
Scott Karp is having trouble getting linked. The other day the proprietor of Publishing 2.0 and managing director of research and strategy for Atlantic Media admitted that despite emailing influential bloggers (Dave Winer, Jeff Jarvis, and Steve Rubel), he’s been unable to get them to link to his site.
Continue Reading: In the Blogging World You Don’t Have Sex on the First Date
January 19th
On Change
“A lot of the features and functionality of so-called Web 2.0 sites are now common elements in most current web apps and sites.”
Call them what you want, people are learning to build networked, participation-focused applications pretty quickly, it seems.
January 17th
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.”
January 16th
Trends to Watch in 2006 – Part 3
The following is part 3 in a series of Trends to Watch in 2006 right here on your neighborhood Bokardo.com. (Part 1 | Part 2)
The Life Portfolio
Every blogger knows that people judge them in part by their blog. The design of the site, the number of comments they receive, the attention they get from others linking in, and the very words they use represent them to their readers are all important. In my case, I’m sometimes called “Josh Bokardo” because people have no idea where the word Bokardo comes from, and assume (at first glance), that it’s probably my last name.
Continue Reading: Trends to Watch in 2006 – Part 3
