Created by Christian Stoitchev 43”b”

Web 1.0 (1991-2003) is a retronym which refers to the state of the World Wide Web, and any website design style used before the advent of the Web 2.0 phenomenon. Web 1.0 began with the release of the WWW to the public in 1991, and is the general term that has been created to describe the Web before the "bursting of the Dot-com bubble" in 2001, which is seen by many as a turning point for the internet.

Since 2004, Web 2.0 has been the term used to describe the current age of the Internet.[1]

[2] It is easiest to formulate a sense of the term Web 1.0 when it is used in relation to the term Web 2.0, to compare the two and offer examples of each.

Characteristics

Terry Flew, in his 3rd Edition of New Media described what he believed to characterize the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0:

"move from personal websites to blogs and blog site aggregation, from publishing to participation, from web content as the outcome of large up-front investment to an ongoing and interactive process, and from content management systems to links based on tagging (folksonomy)".

Flew believed it to be the above factors that form the basic change in trends that resulted in the onset of the Web 2.0 craze.[3]

The shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 can be seen as a result of technological refinements, which included such adaptations as "broadband, improved browsers, and Ajax, to the rise of Flash application platforms and the mass development of widgetization, such as Flickr and YouTube badges".[4]

Web 1.0 design elements

Static pages instead of dynamic user-generated content.[5] The use of framesets. Proprietary HTML extensions such as the <blink> and

<marquee> tags introduced during the first browser war. Online guestbooks. GIF buttons, typically 88x31 pixels in size promoting web

browsers and other products.[6] HTML forms sent via email. A user would fill in a form, and

upon clicking submit their email client would attempt to send an email containing the form's details.[7]

Some typical design elements of a Web 1.0 site include:

As well as such adjustments to the internet, the shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 is a direct result of the change in the behaviour of those who use the World Wide Web. Web 1.0 trends included worries over privacy concerns resulting in a one-way flow of information, through websites which contained "read-only" material. Widespread computer

illiteracy and slow internet connections added to the restrictions of the internet, which characterised Web 1.0.[4] Now, during Web 2.0, the use of the Web can be characterized as the decentralization of website content, which is now generated from the "bottom-up", with many users being contributors and producers of information, as well as the traditional consumers.

To take an example from above, Personal web pages were common in Web 1.0, and these consisted of mainly static pages hosted on free hosting services such as Geocities. Nowadays, dynamically generated blogs and social networking profiles, such as Myspace and Facebook, are more popular, allowing for readers to comment on posts in a way that was not available during Web 1.0.

At the Technet Summit in November 2006, Reed Hastings, founder and CEO of Netflix, stated a simple formula for defining the phases of the Web:

“Web 1.0 was dial-up, 50K average bandwidth, Web 2.0 is an average 1 megabit of bandwidth and Web 3.0 will be 10 megabits of bandwidth all the time, which will be the full video Web, and that will feel like Web 3.0.”

It's hard to define Web 1.0 for several reasons. First, Web 2.0 doesn't refer to a specific advance in Web technology. Instead, Web 2.0 refers to a set of techniques for Web page design and execution. Second, some of these techniques have been around since the World Wide Web first launched, so it's impossible to separate Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 in a time line. The definition of Web 1.0 completely depends upon the definition of Web 2.0.

Ironically, the Web page for the 2007 Web 2.0 summit works more like a Web 1.0 page.

With that in mind, if Web 2.0 is a collection of approaches that are the most effective on the World Wide Web, then Web 1.0 includes everything else. As for what it means to be "effective," Tim O'Reilly says that it's providing users with an engaging experience so that they'll want to return to the Web page in the future. Here's a collection of strategies O'Reilly considers to be part of the Web 1.0 philosophy:

Web 1.0 sites are static. They contain information that might be useful, but there's no reason for a visitor to return to the site later. An example might be a personal Web page that gives information about the site's owner, but never changes. A Web 2.0 version might be a blog or MySpace account that owners can frequently update.

Web 1.0 sites aren't interactive. Visitors can only visit these sites; they can't impact or contribute to the sites. Most organizations have profile pages that visitors can look at but not impact or alter, whereas a wiki allows anyone to visit and make changes.

Web 1.0 applications are proprietary. Under the Web 1.0 philosophy, companies develop software applications that users can download, but they can't see how the application works or change it. A Web 2.0 application is an open source program, which means the source code for the program is freely available. Users can see how the application works and make modifications or even build new applications based on earlier programs. For example, Netscape Navigator was a proprietary Web browser of the Web 1.0 era. Firefox follows the Web 2.0 philosophy and provides developers with all the tools they need to create new Firefox applications

A tag cloud (a typical Web 2.0 phenomenon in itself) presenting Web 2.0 themes

The term "Web 2.0" is commonly associated with web applications that facilitate interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design,[1] 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 each other as contributors to the website's 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.[2][3] 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"[4] — precisely because he specifically intended the Web to embody these values in the first place.

The term did not resurface until 2003.[6][7][8] These authors focus on the concepts currently associated with the term where, as Scott Dietzen puts it, "the Web becomes a universal, standards-based integration platform".[9]

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 Battelle and Tim O'Reilly outlined their definition of the "Web as Platform", where software applications are built upon the Web as opposed to upon thedesktop. The unique aspect of this migration, they argued, is that "customers are building your business for you".[10] They argued that the activities of users generating content (in the form of ideas, text, videos, or pictures) could be "harnessed" to create value.

History: From Web 1.0 to 2.0

The term "Web 2.0" was coined in 1999 by Darcy DiNucci. In her article, "Fragmented Future," DiNucci writes:[5]The Web we know now, which loads into a browser window in essentially static screenfulls, is only an embryo of the Web to come. The first glimmerings of Web 2.0 are beginning to appear, and we are just starting to see how that embryo might develop. The Web will be understood not as screenfulls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether through which interactivity happens. It will [...] appear on your computer screen, [...] on your TV set [...] your car dashboard [...] your cell phone [...] hand-held game machines [...] maybe even your microwave oven.Her use of the term deals mainly with Web design and aesthetics; she argues that the Web is "fragmenting" due to the widespread use of portable Web-ready devices. Her article is aimed at designers, reminding them to code for an ever-increasing variety of hardware. As such, her use of the term hints at – but does not directly relate to – the current uses of the term.

Characteristics

Flickr, a Web 2.0 web site that allows its users to upload and share photos

Web 2.0 websites allow users to do more than just retrieve information. They can build on the interactive facilities of "Web 1.0" to provide "Network as platform" computing, allowing users to run software-applications entirely through a browser.[3] Users can own the data on a Web 2.0 site and exercise control over that data.[3][14] These sites may have an "Architecture of participation" that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it.[2][3]

The concept of Web-as-participation-platform captures many of these characteristics. Bart Decrem, a founder and former CEO of Flock, calls Web 2.0 the "participatory Web"[15] and regards the Web-as-information-source as Web 1.0.

The impossibility of excluding group-members who don’t contribute to the provision of goods from sharing profits gives rise to the possibility that rational members will prefer to withhold their contribution of effort and free-ride on the contribution of others.[16] This requires what is sometimes called

Radical Trust by the management of the website. According to Best,[17] the characteristics of Web 2.0 are: rich user experience, user participation, dynamic content, metadata, web standards and scalability. Further characteristics, such as openness, freedom[18] and collective intelligence[19] by way of user participation, can also be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0.

How it works

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.[22] 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 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, JSP 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.

1995 vs 2005, are we thinking different?

1996 vs 2006 – People’s attendance much ?

These days, if you have a hammer, everything looks like Hammer 2.0.  The hype around Web 2.0 inspired this naming convention, and I've now seen CRM 2.0, Health 2.0, Marketing 2.0, Government 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0.Web 2.0 is the second-generation of web companies, the rebirth after the dot-com crash.  What is, and what is not, Web 2.0 is subject to debate, but here's a quick comparison to Web 1.0:

Web 1.0 Web 2.0

One-way Two-way

Authoritarian Democratic

Passive Active

Static Dynamic

Closed  Collaborative 

While Tim Berners-Lee always intended for the World Wide Web to be a two-way communication medium for reading and writing, most early sites were for one-way communication, with a company describing itself in brochureware.  Web 2.0 sites build interaction and community and shared content.

Too often Web 1.0 was authoritarian and top-down-"this is the way it is".  Web 2.0 is democratic and bottom-up.  Instead of the New York Times 1.0 site telling you what the important stories of the day were, Digg.com and Buzz.Yahoo.com shows the stories users have voted the most important.Web 1.0 sites were simply to be read passively.  Web 2.0 sites invite participation:  voting content up or down, rating it, commenting on it, submitting new posts.  By 2000, Amazon.com was letting you review books, but these days you can participate in many more ways:  create lists of products (top 10 lists, lists of classics by certain authors, etc.), write product guides and edit wiki articles (Amapedia).  In 2000, Amazon was using its sites to sell products it stocked;  in the Web 2.0 world, Amazon now lets you list and sell your own new and used books and products through their site as well.

Web 1.0 sites were static and rarely changed (except for news sites), where Web 2.0 sites are dynamic and change hourly or more often, reflecting all of those user contributions.Web 1.0 sites were closed, but Web 2.0 sites are collaborative.  Where

CNN.com quickly became the leading Web 1.0 news web site, CNN.com now has a sister site, iReport.com, where videos are submitted by users.  CNN then mines this content and fact-checks some videos for inclusion on CNN.com.

So that's a quick overview of Web 2.0.  What does it mean for marketing?  Join Brian Koma, myself and Sid Banerjee (CEO and founder of Clarabridge) next Wednesday for an AMA webinar, "Marketing in a Web 2.0 World", where we talk about the Seven Wonders of the Web 2.0 World and give examples of harnessing Web 2.0 for continuous feedback and innovation.

The Amazon Web site was quick to embrace Web 2.0 concepts in features like its customer book reviews.Part of the Web 2.0 philosophy is creating a Web page that visitors can

impact or change. For example, the Amazon Web site allows visitors to post product reviews. Future visitors will have a chance to read these reviews, which might influence their decision to buy the product. The ability to contribute information is helpful. But in some cases, the webmaster wouldn't want users to be able to impact the Web page. A restaurant might have a Web page that shows the current menu. While the menu might evolve over time, the webmaster wouldn't want visitors to be able to make changes. The menu's purpose is to let people know what the restaurant serves; it's not the right place for commentary or reviews.

Another example of a good Web 1.0 approach is information resources. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia resource that allows visitors to make changes to most articles. Ideally, with enough people contributing to Wikipedia entries, the most accurate and relevant information about every subject will eventually be part of each article. Unfortunately, because anyone can change entries, it's possible for someone to post false or misleading information. People can purposefully or unwittingly damage an article's credibility by adding inaccurate facts. While moderators do patrol the pages for these acts of vandalism, there's no guarantee that the information on an entry will be accurate on any given day.

World Book Encyclopedia's Web page is an example of a Web 1.0 information resource.

Web 2.0 websites typically include some of the following features and techniques. Andrew McAfee used the acronym SLATES to refer to them:[20]

Search Finding information through keyword search.

Links Connects information together into a meaningful information ecosystem using the model

of the Web, and provides low-barrier social tools.

Authoring The ability to create and update content leads to the collaborative work of many rather

than just a few web authors. In wikis, users may extend, undo and redo each other's work. In blogs, posts and the comments of individuals build up over time.

Tags Categorization of content by users adding "tags" - short, usually one-word descriptions =

to facilitate searching, without dependence on pre-made categories. Collections of tags created by many users within a single system may be referred to as "folksonomies" (i.e., folk taxonomies).

Extensions Software that makes the Web an application platform as well as a document server.

Signals The use of syndication technology such as RSS to notify users of content changes.

Technology overview

Web 2.0 draws together the capabilities of client- and server-side software, content syndication and the use of network protocols. Standards-oriented web browsers may use plug-ins and software extensions to handle the content and the user interactions. Web 2.0 sites provide users with information storage, creation, and dissemination capabilities that were not possible in the environment now known as "Web 1.0".

^ Web 1.0 defined - How stuff works

^ Web 1.0 Revisited - Too many stupid buttons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_1.0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0