Transcript MS PowerPoint format

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