Web 2.0 – Whatever Happened to Web 1.0?

David Hyett

David Wattam

Who am I?

• Library and information management background• 5 years with British Antarctic Survey• Head of Information Management

– Web team

– Data management

– Archives and records management

– Library services

Outline of presentation

• Define Web 1.0 and Web 2.0• Web 2.0 – my viewpoint• Web 2.0 – what’s bad• Web 2.0 – what’s good• BAS website redevelopment

– Where Web 2.0 technology has been used

– Future Web 2.0 developments

What’s the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0?

• Web 1.0 • Web 2.0

Define Web 1.0 and Web 2.0

• Different things to different people• Web 1.0

– one-way publishing

– usability, good design, good navigation

• Web 2.0– Interactivity

– Social networking, blogs, wikis, user generated content

• Web 3.0– AI, personalisation

Web 1.0 and Web 2.0

• Web – virtually unrecognisable since start of Web 1.0 in 1990s• Any other software – version 9.0 or 10.0 by now

– cutting edge or

– not developing fast enough?

• Two directions at the same time– move towards interactivity

– greater focus/awareness on usability, accessibility

– will the two directions collide?

Web 2.0 – my viewpoint

Web 2.0 – my viewpoint

• Partial sceptic rather than dinosaur• Scepticism not based on

– threat to IT infrastructure

– can’t control it, so block it

– risk of relying on 3rd party suppliers

• Cautious approach– use where adds value

– doesn’t detract from user goals

Web 2.0 – what’s bad?

• Jakob Nielsen – not inherently bad• Risk diverting resources from the basics• Waste resources – how far does Web 2.0 contribute to user

experience?• Irrelevant to core user needs• Specific tasks – users don’t want to be swayed

Web 2.0 – what’s bad?

• Boring and confusing• Users overwhelmed with choice – more and more similar services• Feature creep – more features at expense of simplicity• Similar to dot.com era – hype, glitz, glamour and ideas• Some but not many clear leaders • What is Web 2.0 really moving towards?• Blogs – 90% are boring, good example of vanity publishing

Web 2.0 – what’s good?

• Can add value – targeted to addressing core user needs• Interactivity – user engagement• Less formal means of communicating• User generated content• Move away from separate websites – combine content• Democratised access to information• Creates jobs for developers

Redevelopment of the BAS website

• Original brief – promote BAS, award winning• Focus on vanity publishing and Web 2.0• Shift in opinion on how best to promote BAS• Usability consultant – largest proportion of project budget• Focus on the basics:

– good IA, solid navigation, good design

– understand user goals

– clarity on target user groups

– usability testing

BAS website – where does Web 2.0 fit in?

• Usability more important than Web 2.0• Only use Web 2.0 features if add value• Only use if if users really want it• Don’t detract from basics – meeting user goals• Web 2.0 has brought change

BAS website – where has Web 2.0 been used?

• Social bookmarking links• RSS feeds – news, images, jobs• Voting for Image of the Day and Penguin of the Day• Penguin of the Day Facebook application – over 5,000

subscribers

BAS website – where has Web 2.0 been used?

Penguin of the Day

Penguin of the Day - Facebook application

BAS website – future Web 2.0 developments

• Diaries from ships and Antarctic bases – change from monthly diaries to blogs

• User goals – keeping friends and family informed• 24 hour internet access in the Antarctic – own blogs• Declining popularity of diaries – Web 2.0 bringing change• Less formal, more engaging• Web 2.0 – deliver information better while stay focussed on user

goals• BAS blog facility v. links to existing services?

Summary

• Cautious common sense approach• Risk – at best is irrelevant, at worst can detract from user goals• Usability remains top priority• Use where adds value and doesn’t detract from user goals• Web 2.0 has brought change and we need to respond…but, let’s

get Web 1.0 right first