Web 2.0 is the next version of web sites, the world is going to change their websites to be more attractive, simple, usable, scalable, bright and sharable by designing it with web 2.0 standards. web 2.0 is not changing the web design concept it's also changing the web marketing concepts, programming concepts, and usability concepts. The term "Web 2.0" (2004–present) is commonly associated with web applications that facilitate interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration on the World Wide Web. Examples of Web 2.0 include web-based communities, hosted services, web applications, social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs, mashups, and folksonomies. A Web 2.0 site allows its users to interact with other users or to change website content, in contrast to non-interactive websites where users are limited to the passive viewing of information that is provided to them.
The term is closely associated with Tim O'Reilly because of the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004. Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but rather to cumulative changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the Web. Whether Web 2.0 is qualitatively different from prior web technologies has been challenged by World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, who called the term a "piece of jargon" — precisely because he intended the Web to embody these values in the first place.
In 2004, the term began its rise in popularity when O'Reilly Media and MediaLive hosted the first Web 2.0 conference. In their opening remarks, John Batelle and Tim O'Reilly outlined their definition of the "Web as Platform", where software applications are built upon the Web as opposed to upon the desktop. The unique aspect of this migration, they argued, is that "customers are building your business for you". They argued that the activities of users generating content (in the form of ideas, text, videos, or pictures) could be "harnessed" to create value.
O'Reilly et al. contrasted Web 2.0 with what they called "Web 1.0". They associated Web 1.0 with the business models of Netscape and the Encyclopedia Britannica Online. For example,
Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products. Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the "horseless carriage" framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted a "webtop" to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers.
In short, Netscape focused on creating software, updating it on occasion, and distributing it to the end users. O'Reilly contrasts this with Google, a company which does not focus on producing software such as a browser but instead focuses on providing a service based on data. The data here, of course, are the links Web page authors make between sites. Google exploits this user-generated content to offer Web search based on reputation through its "Page Rank" algorithm. Unlike software, which undergoes scheduled releases, a service such as Google is constantly updated, a process called "the perpetual beta".
Using Web 2.0
The client-side/web browser technologies typically used in Web 2.0 development are Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (Ajax), Adobe Flash and the Adobe Flex framework, and JavaScript/Ajax frameworks such as Yahoo! UI Library, Dojo Toolkit, MooTools, and jQuery. Ajax programming uses JavaScript to upload and download new data from the web server without undergoing a full page reload.
To permit the user to continue to interact with the page, communications such as data requests going to the server are separated from data coming back to the page (asynchronously). Otherwise, the user would have to routinely wait for the data to come back before they can do anything else on that page, just as a user has to wait for a page to complete the reload. This also increases overall performance of the site, as the sending of requests can complete quicker independent of blocking and queueing required to send data back to the client.
The data fetched by an Ajax request is typically formatted in XML or JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) format, two widely used structured data formats. Since both of these formats are natively understood by JavaScript, a programmer can easily use them to transmit structured data in their web application. When this data is received via Ajax, the JavaScript program then uses the Document Object Model (DOM) to dynamically update the web page based on the new data, allowing for a rapid and interactive user experience. In short, using these techniques, Web designers can make their pages function like desktop applications. For example, Google Docs uses this technique to create a Web-based word processor.
Adobe Flex is another technology often used in Web 2.0 applications. Compared to JavaScript libraries like jQuery, Flex makes it easier for programmers to populate large data grids, charts, and other heavy user interactions. Applications programmed in Flex, are compiled and displayed as Flash within the browser. As a widely available plugin independent of W3C (World Wide Web Consortium, the governing body of web standards and protocols), standards, Flash is capable of doing many things which are not currently possible in HTML, the language used to construct web pages. Of Flash's many capabilities, the most commonly used in Web 2.0 is its ability to play audio and video files. This has allowed for the creation of Web 2.0 sites such as YouTube, where video media is seamlessly integrated with standard HTML.
In addition to Flash and Ajax, JavaScript/Ajax frameworks have recently become a very popular means of creating Web 2.0 sites. At their core, these frameworks do not use technology any different from JavaScript, Ajax, and the DOM. What frameworks do is smooth over inconsistencies between web browsers and extend the functionality available to developers. Many of them also come with customizable, prefabricated 'widgets' that accomplish such common tasks as picking a date from a calendar, displaying a data chart, or making a tabbed panel.
On the server side, Web 2.0 uses many of the same technologies as Web 1.0. Languages such as PHP, Ruby, ColdFusion, Perl, Python, and ASP are used by developers to dynamically output data using information from files and databases. What has begun to change in Web 2.0 is the way this data is formatted. In the early days of the Internet, there was little need for different websites to communicate with each other and share data. In the new "participatory web", however, sharing data between sites has become an essential capability. To share its data with other sites, a web site must be able to generate output in machine-readable formats such as XML, RSS, and JSON. When a site's data is available in one of these formats, another website can use it to integrate a portion of that site's functionality into itself, linking the two together. When this design pattern is implemented, it ultimately leads to data that is both easier to find and more thoroughly categorized, a hallmark of the philosophy behind the Web 2.0 movement.
Web Site Performance is impacted by many factors and it also impacts your business. When a user interacts with the web site and it feels slow it can be caused by slowly executing JavaScript, massive DOM Manipulations, a slow network connection, latency, an overloaded web server, slow running server-side code or inefficient database queries. Web Applications have changed over the years – so has the performance anatomy of Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0 Applications. In our two recent Webinars with Zappos and Monster the Performance Engineers of these two clients talked about the challenge of Web 2.0 Performance Management and how they use dynaTrace’s End-To-End Tracing capability to improve their web-sites end-user experience.
Web 1.0 Anatomy
Web 2.0 Anatomy
Web 1.0 Versus 2.0
• Web 1.0 was about reading, Web 2.0 is about writing
• Web 1.0 was about companies, Web 2.0 is about communities
• Web 1.0 was about client-server, Web 2.0 is about peer to peer
• Web 1.0 was about HTML, Web 2.0 is about XML
• Web 1.0 was about home pages, Web 2.0 is about blogs
• Web 1.0 was about portals, Web 2.0 is about RSS
• Web 1.0 was about taxonomy, Web 2.0 is about tags
• Web 1.0 was about wires, Web 2.0 is about wireless
• Web 1.0 was about owning, Web 2.0 is about sharing
• Web 1.0 was about IPOs, Web 2.0 is about trade sales
• Web 1.0 was about Netscape, Web 2.0 is about Google
• Web 1.0 was about web forms, Web 2.0 is about web applications
• Web 1.0 was about screen scraping, Web 2.0 is about APIs
• Web 1.0 was about dialup, Web 2.0 is about broadband
• Web 1.0 was about hardware costs, Web 2.0 is about bandwidth costs
• Web 1.0 was top-down. Web 2.0 is bottom-up.
• Web 1.0 was edited and produced. Web 2.0 is raw.
• Web 1.0 was banner ads. Web 2.0 is Adsense.
• Web 1.0 was text. Web 2.0 is video.
• Web 1.0 was professional. Web 2.0 is amature.
• Web 1.0 is a static web Web 2.0 is a social web.
• Web 1.0 is page based Web 2.0 is record based.
• Web 1.0 is edited by owner of the website Web 2.0 can be edited by any person.
** P/S : want 2 add more about this post, but time doesn't allowed me...i'll update later...
0 comments:
Post a Comment