But for a few good chuckles, I suggest you Google the following and browse the first 20-30 listings:
failures Gartner Group warnings Gartner Group Gartner Group expects Gartner Group predicts
As for "Web 2.0?, like so many tech articles posted since Tim O'Reilly (or was it Dale Dougherty?) first coined the term in 2004 (or was it 2005?), this one references "Web 2.0" as if it were something tangible--or at least a concept with clear, concise definition. It is not. In 2006, Web founder Sir Tim Berners-Lee sagely observed that "nobody knows what it means":
It is a cool video. But the message is all about XML and how it can be used to separate form and content. There was no mention of CSS and XHTML, but no matter. I was writing XML parsers in the '90s, and XHTML/CSS web design pre-dates "Web 2.0" as well.
And now in 2008, the most honest thing we can say is that "Web 2.0" means whatever the techno-marketeer (ab)using it wants it to mean. Otherwise, why would intelligent people like Isaac O'Bannon still be writing articles asking "What is Web 2.0?":
... include no attempt at defining the term other than to list the "Web 2.0 Tools" that comprise or enable it? And even there, the chief ingredient is identified only as "Web Services", adding more mystery to the mix as one ethereal term is offered up to explain another.
As originated in an Onstartups.com website design posting...
-
Gartner Group Gaffs and Web 2.0 Techno-Hype
Aug 19 10:38 am
|Rating:
0
0
All Comments by MiamiWebDesigner »Where Are We in the Tech Hype Cycle? [View article]
The renowned Gartner Group's latest Hype Cycle report places "Web 2.0" in a "Trough of Disillusionment":
tinyurl.com/6ycvs8
But for a few good chuckles, I suggest you Google the following and browse the first 20-30 listings:
failures Gartner Group
warnings Gartner Group
Gartner Group expects
Gartner Group predicts
As for "Web 2.0?, like so many tech articles posted since Tim O'Reilly (or was it Dale Dougherty?) first coined the term in 2004 (or was it 2005?), this one references "Web 2.0" as if it were something tangible--or at least a concept with clear, concise definition. It is not. In 2006, Web founder Sir Tim Berners-Lee sagely observed that "nobody knows what it means":
tinyurl.com/y6ewzy
In 2007, Michael Wesch put together this video that supposedly "explains what Web 2.0 really is about":
tinyurl.com/6pdz2q
It is a cool video. But the message is all about XML and how it can be used to separate form and content. There was no mention of CSS and XHTML, but no matter. I was writing XML parsers in the '90s, and XHTML/CSS web design pre-dates "Web 2.0" as well.
And now in 2008, the most honest thing we can say is that "Web 2.0" means whatever the techno-marketeer (ab)using it wants it to mean. Otherwise, why would intelligent people like Isaac O'Bannon still be writing articles asking "What is Web 2.0?":
tinyurl.com/5solok
And, why would McKinsey's just-released best-of-breed report entitled "Building the Web 2.0 Enterprise" ...
tinyurl.com/6sxls7
... include no attempt at defining the term other than to list the "Web 2.0 Tools" that comprise or enable it? And even there, the chief ingredient is identified only as "Web Services", adding more mystery to the mix as one ethereal term is offered up to explain another.
As originated in an Onstartups.com website design posting...
tinyurl.com/576sgs
... "Web 2.0" is like pornography: Nobody has defined it; you just have to know it when you see it.
Bruce Arnold, Web Design Miami Florida
www.PervasivePersuasio...