Alexis, good to see that we agree on so much. In fact, I feel we totally agree in what was at the core of this discussion. At 21:12 Uhr +0000 14.2.2007, Alexis Turner wrote:
To be honest, it seems like you are hell bent on getting me to agree to some sort of slippery slope scenario where I ultimately agree that the modern iteration of the web is exactly the same as a library card catalog.
No, this is not in my intention. I am simply trying to throw in enough examples that show the changes in the Web we have been seeing recently are not a paradigm shift (that silly 1 2 marketing scam) as we already agreed on, but in good continuation of earlier great developments, functions and ideas.
I don't believe that and I don't plan on agreeing to it that easily. If I gain 1 pound, I'm still thin. If I gain another. Still thin. I start to look a little jowly after 20, though. The web, likewise, looks a little different after so many years of development. Why get hung up on terminology...1.0 v. 2.0? Has our approach matured, or hasn't it?
Sure, yes, of course! I wouldn't call you or the Web "fat", though. Universally binary maybe ;-)
In what kind of scenario would it be possible for a person to use the web without having to find something?
As an aside: the term "surfing" was explicitly used for what people do on the Web, because it semantically contains rather large portions of drifting aimlessly, being shoveled where the waves go, being blown away etc., and not searching with a clear goal. Thanks for pointing out that most activities on the Web involve at least some searching, and may it be for the mouse arrow on the screen...
So, in other words, your only real complaint is the actual terminology "web 2.0?"
The terminology *and* what is associated with it: Brainwashing by dichotomizing the multitude of developments, ideas, functions, applications, communities that make up the Web. Degrading so many great ideas by comparing them to a subset and suggesting that the subset is fundamentally better. Take the Google (search engine) example again that supposedly is 1.0. 2.0 talk would suggest that it is backwardish to develop or use something like Google. But this is not true, of course. Social software is a relatively new concept, as is the Blog. But there are many many others, just think and remember. Off the hat: listserv, Gopher, forms, Dejanews, The Well, irc, Amazon, elbot, ICQ, Javascript, Java, MUD, frames, CSS, open source, Yahoo!, VRML, Panoramas, plugin, Netscape, PGP, top level domain expansion, Skype, PDF, spiders, open access, wireless, paperball, meta search, DHTML, https, fax2mail, PHP, Webcam... definitely not a 1.0_2.0able development!
Does that mean that you do or do not believe that certain tasks are approached with a different mindset or set of tools...on a large scale?
Well, here we are - as has been mentioned before, we are having this discussion via a plain old - and I would like to say: very well maintained! - *listserv*. Oh, hey, throw some tags at me ;-)
If yes, how significant is that difference? (In other words, how many pounds does the web have to gain before you feel that it no longer looks exactly the same as it used to?)
It never looks the same. Part of the reason is that I have only two eyes. Eye 1.0 and eye 2.0 ;-)
Thanks for the good discussion.... -Alexis
Same here --u -- PD Dr. Ulf-Dietrich Reips Past President, Society for Computers in Psychology (http://scip.ws) Editor, International Journal of Internet Science (http://www.ijis.net) *new address* Universität Zürich Psychologisches Institut Binzmühlestr. 14/13 8050 Zürich, Switzerland iScience portal (http://psych-iscience.unizh.ch/)