There has been a lot of buzz around Web 2.0. The idea is that the old Internet companies (ostensibly Web 1.0) were built on a model that did not last. When the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, many of those companies could not adapt or survive. So what is Web 2.0? Tim O’Reilly describes Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that includes:
- The perpetual beta
- Software that gets better the more people use it
- Hackability (Google Maps)
- Participation, not publishing (blogs)
- Tagging, not taxonomy (del.icio.us; Flickr)
- Radical trust (Wikipedia)
- Rich user interface (AJAX)
- Small pieces loosely joined
So what does the Web 2.0 look like? I took screenshots from a series of websites consider part of the Web 2.0 crowd to look at their design in search of a common thread.
What did I find?
- Lots of white and grey. Most of the sites used a white background with little splashes of bright colors for some text.
- Lots of Arial. Most of the sites used Arial. Is it just me, or does Arial feel like 1970’s Helvetica signage?
- Very light on the images. Mainly text-based interfaces.
- Most advertising is text-based (i.e. Adsense)
- Greater emphasis on social interaction (sharing, syndication, comments, trackbacks, etc.)
When I contrast the design and function of these “next-generation” websites with my own, there’s a huge difference. Is it time for a network-wide refresh?
What do you like/dislike about this new breed of websites?
Technorati Tags: Web 2.0