what makes Web 2.

0 applications
unique?
30 October 2006
Wesley Willett
CS260
 Web 2.0 According to
O’Reilly
• “Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all
connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that
make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that
platform: delivering software as a continually-updated
service that gets better the more people use it,
consuming and remixing data from multiple sources,
including individual users, while providing their own data
and services in a form that allows remixing by others,
creating network effects through an "architecture of
participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of
Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.”
- Tim O'Reilly October 01, 2005
Outline
• From Early Hypertext to Web 2.0
– Implementing aspirations of hypertext
pioneers
– What “2.0” adds that “1.0” lacked
– A group discussion exercise
• Authorship and Information Aggregation
in Blogs, Wikis, and Beyond (time
permitting)
Drawing on Readings
• Millard, D. E. and Ross, M. 2006. Web 2.0:
Hypertext by Any Other Name?. In HT’06.

• Carter, S. 2005. The Role of the Author in

Topical Blogs. In CHI 2005.
• Walker, J. 2005. Feral Hypertext. In HT’05.
Disclaimer (2.0)
Web 2.0: Hypertext by
Any Other Name?
Vannevar Bush | Memex
As We May Think - 1945
 Ted Nelson |
“Hypertext”1965

Doug Engelbart | oNLine

System
“Mother of all Demos” - 1
 Lippman, MIT | Aspen
Movie Map
1st hypermedia system - 1978
 Vision of
hypertext/hypermedia
• A non-linear medium of information
• Not just the WWW

• To look at:
– How well do “Web 2.0” systems implement/refine
“ideal” hypertext/hypermedia models?
– How are they better than “Web 1.0”?
– An interesting lens through which to examine what
makes these new systems unique, useful.
Aspirations of Hypertext |
Millard & Ross
5 major categories

Search
Structure
Adaptive
Versioning
Authoring
Aspirations of Hypertext |
Millard & Ross
As we step through:
• What systems realize these aspirations?
• How well do they do so?
• What are the implications for how we
use these systems?
 Aspirations | Search
• Content
• Context
• Structural
 Web 2.0 | Search
• Content: Explicit text search
(Prevalent in 1.0)
 Web 2.0 | Search
• Context: Implicating tags and other
metadata
• Structural: Not commonly seen.
Examples?
Aspirations | Structure &
Content
• Typed n-ary links
• Composition
• Extended navigation structures
• User Trails
 Web 2.0 | Structure &
Content
• Typed n-ary links: Only in research
systems?
 Web 2.0 | Structure &
Content
• Composition: ex) Flickr photo
collections
 Web 2.0 | Structure &
Content
• Extended navigation structures:
ex) last.fm Tag Radio
 Web 2.0 | Structure &
Content
• User Trails: ex) Amazon
 Aspirations | Dynamic /
Adaptive
• Content
• Structures
• Computation over the network
• Personalization
 Web 2.0 | Dynamic /
Adaptive
• Content:
– Low-level support with php,
javascript, etc.
– Higher-level paradigms like AJAX
– ex) much of the modern web
 Web 2.0 | Dynamic /
Adaptive
• Structures: ex) Flickr Explore

ex) Digg
Spy
 Web 2.0 | Dynamic /
Adaptive
• Computation over the network:
ex) web-based productivity
apps.
 Web 2.0 | Dynamic /
Adaptive
• Personalization: ex) My Yahoo!,
Everything!
Aspirations | Versioning
• Entity
• Network
 Web 2.0 | Versioning
• Entity - Wikis, but not much else.
 Web 2.0 | Versioning
• Network: twiki, etc.

Also, versioning entire apps

incrementally
– “End of the software release cycle.”
 Aspirations | Authoring
• Private Annotation
• Public Annotation
• Global Collaboration
• Restricted Collaboration
• Extensibility
 Web 2.0 | Authoring
• Private Annotation:
ex) primitive blogs, editing
basic html
 Web 2.0 | Authoring
• Public Annotation:

ex) blogging + comments

 Web 2.0 | Authoring
• Global Collaboration:
ex)
review/commendation
systems

ex) Wikipedia
 Web 2.0 | Authoring
• Extensibility: Public APIs

http://programmableweb.com/api
s
How do the Applications Stack
Up?

Millard and Ross,

Which of these aspirations
do Web 2.0 apps fulfill?
 Content Search  Dynamic Structures
 Context Search  Computation over Network
 Personalization
Structural Search
 Versioning
Typed n-ary links  Private Annotations
 Composition  Public Annotations
 Extending  Restricted Collaboration
Navigation  Global Collaboration
Structures  Extensibility
 User Trails
 Dynamic Content
 What other aspects of
modern web apps aren’t
covered here?
• Millard & Ross only look at Flickr,
a few wikis/blogs
• What about social networks?
• Doesn’t address interface
richness
 Some Questions
• Which of these aspirations do specific web
apps fulfill?
• How much of this is application dependent?
– Are some of Millard & Ross’ ideals not useful or
practical for many systems?
• Are these attributes useful criteria to
consider when classifying, analyzing,
and designing web applications?
O’Reilly | Classifying Web
2.0 Apps
• Another very different way of grouping
these applications.
• “A hierarchy of ‘Web 2.0-ness’.”

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/07/levels_of_t
O’Reilly | Classifying Web
2.0 Apps
• Level 0: App would work as well offline from a local data
cache
– ex) MapQuest
• Level 1: App can and does exist offline, but gains
features online
– ex) Writely
• Level 2: App could exist offline, but uniquely benefits by
being online
– ex) Flickr
• Level 3: App could only exist on the net
– ex) Craigslist

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/07/levels_of_t
An Exercise
 An Exercise

• Millard & Ross’ Ideals • O’Reilly’s Hierarchy

– Search – Level 0: Web adds little
• Content, Context, Structure
– Structure – Level 1: Minor benefits
• Composition, Navigation – Level 2: Unique
Structures, User Trails
– Adaptive/Dynamic
benefits
• Dynamic Content & Structures, – Level 3: Could only
Computation over the Network,
Personalization exist online
– Versioning
• Entity, Network
– Authoring
• Private, Public, Collaboration,
Extensibility
Although if we did just want to
find out…

http://web2.0validator
.com
Blogs, Wikis, & Beyond
 Blurring the Distinctions
Between Authors and
Readers
• Blogging & Comments
• Wikis
• Ratings (& meta-ratings)
 Blogs | Accumulating
and Digesting
Information
• Information from a variety of sources.
- Posts reference other blogs, outside sources, and
introduce new material.
- Multiple authors create and digest content and
structure through posts, links, and comments.

- Success, conflict resolution largely gauged via

popularity and stickiness of the content.
Frequency of Link and Quote
Sources in Selected Topical
Blogs

Scott Carter,The Role of the Author in Topical

Blogs. HT’05
 Other Models of
Accumulating Information

ex) Wikipedia

ex)Urban Dictionary
 Jill Walker | Feral
Hypertext
• “Massive possibility for collaboration
and emergence in the network creates
truly feral and uncontrollable
hypertext.”

– Wikipedia, Flickr, CiteULike, del.icio.us as

examples of feral structures.
– Important to consider how to make them
navigable.
Jill Walker, Feral Hypertext:When Hypertext Literature Escapes
Control. HT’05
 A Few Final Questions
• How successful are these systems
at creating and structuring
content?
• What are the implications of
multiple authorship?
• How do we design web interaction
to better facilitate/convey it?