Algumas considerações sobre a Web 2.0

Algumas considerações sobre a Web 2.0

O termo Web 2.0 começou a ser usado por volta de 2004. Ao seu surgimento está associado a O'Reilly Media (anteriormente designada por O'Reilly & Associates) criada por Tim O'Reilly, que publica livros e websites e organiza conferências sobre temas de informática. Tim Berners-Lee [físico britânico, cientista da computação e professor do MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)], o inventor da World Wide Web (WWW), considera que o termo carece de sentido, já que a Web 2.0 recorre a muitos componentes tecnológicos criados antes mesmo do surgimento da Web. Outros críticos do termo consideram que está em causa, uma mera jogada de marketing (buzzword, Buzz marketing um tipo especifico de trabalho de marketing que visa a disseminação de propaganda de um produto ou serviço através de cadeias de consumidores).

A Web 1.0, a primeira geração da Internet, teve como principal atributo a grande quantidade de informação disponível e todos podiam aceder. No entanto, o papel do utilizador era meramente passivo.

Mas, quais são as principais diferenças entre a Web 1.0 e a Web 2.0?

Web 1.0

Web 2.0

O utilizador é mero consumidor de informação (papel passivo)

O utilizador é consumidor e produtor de informação (papel dinâmico)

Dificuldades inerentes à programação e aquisição de software específico para a criação de páginas na Web

Facilidade de criação e edição de páginas online

O espaço na Web tem um custo

Vários servidores para disponibilizar as páginas dos utilizadores de forma gratuita

Reduzido número de ferramentas e de possibilidades

Número de ferramentas e possibilidades ilimitadas (dependente da imaginação)

 

Autores como Alexander (2006), O ́Reilly (2005) e Coutinho e Bottentuit Junior (2007) citados por Costa et al. (2009) [Actas do X Congresso Internacional Galego-Português de Psicopedagogia. Braga: Universidade do Minho, 2009; ISBN- 978-972-8746-71-1] classificam as ferramentas da Web 2.0 em duas categorias: uma inclui as aplicações que só podem existir na Internet e cuja eficácia aumenta com o número de utilizadores registados, como por exemplo: Google Docs & Spreadsheets, Wikipédia, del.icio.us, YouTube, Skype, eBay, Hi5, entre outras. A outra categoria, inclui aplicações que podem funcionar offline, mas que também podem trazer grandes vantagens se estiverem online, nestas incluem-se: Picasa Fotos, Google Maps, Mapquest, iTunes e outras.

Um extrato do texto «What Is Web 2.0, Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software» de Tim O'Reilly.

«What Is Web 2.0

Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software

by Tim O'Reilly

09/30/2005

Oct. 2009: Tim O'Reilly and John Battelle answer the question of "What's next for Web 2.0?" in Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On.

The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a turning point for the web. Many people concluded that the web was overhyped, when in fact bubbles and consequent shakeouts appear to be a common feature of all technological revolutions. Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center stage. The pretenders are given the bum's rush, the real success stories show their strength, and there begins to be an understanding of what separates one from the other.

The concept of "Web 2.0" began with a conference brainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O'Reilly VP, noted that far from having "crashed", the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. What's more, the companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common. Could it be that the dot-com collapse marked some kind of turning point for the web, such that a call to action such as "Web 2.0" might make sense? We agreed that it did, and so the Web 2.0 Conference was born.

In the year and a half since, the term "Web 2.0" has clearly taken hold, with more than 9.5 million citations in Google. But there's still a huge amount of disagreement about just what Web 2.0 means, with some people decrying it as a meaningless marketing buzzword, and others accepting it as the new conventional wisdom.

This article is an attempt to clarify just what we mean by Web 2.0.

In our initial brainstorming, we formulated our sense of Web 2.0 by example:

Web 1.0

 

Web 2.0

DoubleClick

-->

Google AdSense

Ofoto

-->

Flickr

Akamai

-->

BitTorrent

mp3.com

-->

Napster

Britannica Online

-->

Wikipedia

personal websites

-->

blogging

evite

-->

upcoming.org and EVDB

domain name speculation

-->

search engine optimization

page views

-->

cost per click

screen scraping

-->

web services

publishing

-->

participation

content management systems

-->

wikis

directories (taxonomy)

-->

tagging ("folksonomy")

stickiness

-->

syndication

The list went on and on. But what was it that made us identify one application or approach as "Web 1.0" and another as "Web 2.0"? (The question is particularly urgent because the Web 2.0 meme has become so widespread that companies are now pasting it on as a marketing buzzword, with no real understanding of just what it means. The question is particularly difficult because many of those buzzword-addicted startups are definitely not Web 2.0, while some of the applications we identified as Web 2.0, like Napster and BitTorrent, are not even properly web applications!) We began trying to tease out the principles that are demonstrated in one way or another by the success stories of web 1.0 and by the most interesting of the new applications …».

Comentários

  • Artur Coelho há 1618 dias

    belíssima recuperação do panorama da web2.0. é giro ler isto na era pós-blogs (bem, ainda existimos mas a promessa dos blogs como libertadores da expressão de cada utilizador esfumou-se); com o rss (syndication) quase extinto e usado apenas por um nicho de super-utilizadores (a google matou o google reader porque... se lês em rss não visitas a página, logo não há clicks para o adsense e registos de acesso); com o napster morto e enterrado (alguém aqui se lembra de o usar? era fantástico!) e o streaming a resolver em parte o problema que as redes p2p colocaram à indústria audio-visual; o tagging apropriado pelas stacks (= conceito do sterling que define o papel preponderante de algumas empresas verticais no mundo online); os serviços web estão a transformar-se em sistema operativo (ver os chromebooks, por exemplo, ou o office 360, google apps, etc); o flickr tornado artefacto arqueológico pelo instagram; o SEO como indústria... o o'reilly começou a falar de web 2 em 2005 (diria até que construiu a editora dele com base nisso ;) ) e é interessante reflectir que se os serviços e nomes sonantes mudaram, os princípios libertários de empowerement dos utilizadores continuam, mesmo que domesticados pelas stacks das redes sociais que criaram um negócio a partir da ideia de utilizador como consumidor/produtor de informação. 

  • Artur Coelho há 1618 dias

    e... suspeito que o post de hoje do Steve Wheeler seja mesmo your cup of tea: http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.pt/2015/01/future-educators.html 

  • Ribães há 1615 dias

    Muito Bem Simões.

    Agora falta colocar a comparação com a Web 3.0 pois dentro em breve já estaremos na Web 4.0. Grande Abraço.

  • Simões há 1615 dias

    Dear Ribães,

    Thank you, for your observation.

    I annex, a small text (What Does Web 3.0 Really Mean?) about Web 3 tematic.

    Regards

     

    What Does Web 3.0 Really Mean?

    Last week I went to the Refresh San Diego meeting over at Platt College (here in San Diego), a gathering of web developers and search marketers. Bill Bonnefil from Digital Telepathy gave a good presentation of how their company works in terms of their creative process, how they "get stuff done". I had the chance to ask Bill a few questions about the future of the web and what the term web 3.0 meant to him. A lot of people laughed when I asked, one guy in the audience even commented:

    I think I’ll wait till they fix all the bugs and then go for version 4.0

    (thought that was funny). Anyhow, Bill seemed to take the question seriously and started off by giving his idea of what 1.0, 2.0 and then what 3.0 means.

    • Web 1.0 was the "one-way" interaction the user had with a web page. You view a web page… and that’s really it, moving onto the next page.
    • Web 2.0 is now the "two-way" intereaction a user has with a web site. You view a web page but now you can place content onto the site and see what others are doing, i.e. YouTube, myspace, facebook, ebay, etc. It’s the people that build the site and the communities.
    • Web 3.0 is the "two-way" interaction PLUS the site generating or comming up with new information based on past user information it already has already collected. Another way to look at it would be any extra logic or intelligence a web page can "mash up" in terms of, for example, offering suggestions on products other people bought from this site or what to do with your specific current stock portfolio now that you have X amount of dollars saved up… sort of a way for the web site to become "smart" and act more like a human would.

    Source: Mike Shannon

    Information about Mike Shannon. Mike Shannon is the CTO and co-founder of BRIM Agency Mike is a technology entrepreneur specializing in web development and search marketing.