The web 2.0 aspect of MicroContent.
I have very mixed feelings after reading this post on ReadWriteWeb. I agree with the conclusions, but not with the reasons.
Web Apps do not yet have the required trust in order to become mainstream. You only trust what you have in your hands, on your computer. A good point. There is a lack of transparency. With a browser based web app, you know your data is in the cloud. With a desktop based web app it is much unclearer where your data is stored. There is no need to know, location is transparent.
One of the reason mentioned is that Web Apps are not ubiquitous yet. We do not have access everywhere yet. a very good argument. I loven reading blog-posts, listening to music, looking at vidcasts, creating blog-posts, when I am forced to be offline.
I agree with the comment that ‘the browser is no place for multitasking’. Josh Catone wants to replace it with multiple browser applications, each application for a single web app, as is the intention with Mozilla Prism. As indicated in the post: ‘a browser is not for hosting applications’. Adobe AIR is already a much better approach, but it is not good enough. Real desktop apps are just much better. Just have a look at MarsEdit, WebNoteHappy, etc. Unfortunately there are now also bad MacOSX examples, such as net4mac, which is just a dedicated browser. Real Desktop Web Apps are based on API’s and not on parroting the corresponding web-pages.
For me it is all about the integrated experience between all the applications.
Social software for workplaces. Problem is that a lost of time is wasted in organisations. [not sure about that, we need relax time]. Problem is also bundling expertise. "knowledge is not a tree, but a pile of leaves". Finding answers in an organisation is difficult. Existing content management systems do not provide answers. Learning from each other in a better way. It must be people driven.
Key elements of Enterprise 2.0 are the social tools, such as blogs, wiki, folksonomy, bookmarking, im; an ecosystem of data (rss, microformats, api's); participatory culture. [interesting to note that we already worked at this within KPN Research 5 years ago]. Use cases are in temas, r&D.
Examples they did for the NHS based on a Wiki, bookmarking for law firms, shared news reading [sounds interesting]. [Are people willing to participate? It requires investment before you get something out]
All about building a better personal radar. Software is not enough. Going for second wave adopters.
Is this the 'new' knowledge management'. Is 'management' a good word? Is it an 'old' word? Management sounds like hierarchy. It should not!!! be supervised. It must stay informal and open. It is all about the formal relationships within a company. What induces a change of behaviour in a company? When start people adopting? Takes time. Key is that it really helps the work. Naturally the experience with these services is still young.
Hemma Kocher is from Headshift
The last days there is a lot of discussion on Web 3.0, which is sort of equated with the Semantic Web. And the question is how we will get there.
What I did not notice in the whole discussion is a mention of the end-user. Does he want a semantic web? Can he handle a semantic web? At the moment Web3.0 only seems to a technology push. Does the end-user know that there is something different than a web-page? And does he act as such?
I am a bit pessimistic here. Large portions of the Internet users do not think beyond the web-page, do not think beyond Word. We should already be happy that they discovered address cards and bookmarks. And hopefully also images and videos are coming in the picture. And of course blogs made a large step here. But do not delude yourself as a reader of this blog and a technology avantgardist that what you do yourself, is also done by others.
It will take a very long time before there is a Web2.0 and I would not be surprised that an adoption will take a generation. The only thing we can do now is to create something to adopt for them.
Lev Manovich discusses some cultural and historical aspects of remixing. He stresses that remixing is nothing new, but it is the way that cultures evolve. Only the quantity of remixing is changing now. And that is basicly due to the tools.
A very nice overview. I like the idea that remixing allows the creation of new paths for content, where it was previously fixed into set paths. The idea that "content must not be locked into the design in order to make remixing easier", is nice.
Bokardo gives 7 reasons why Web 2.0 apps fail. I think it is a good list. If you think of Web 2.0 as MicroContent, they are still good reasons:
Barb Dybwad asks what my favorite Web2.0 social software services are. Well I am interested in the Web2.0 and MicroContent part of this equation, but less than enthusiastic about the social part. So my list is extremely small. I try a lot of services, but find that very few have value for me.
Basically only Pandora is on it. And I do read del.icio.us feeds on certain tags, so I guess that one should be on the list as well. But that is really it.
[Inspiration Marc Canter]
Delicious did an analysis of tags used around the tag Web2.0. The most important tags are ajax, blog, social, tools, etc. But the tag microcontent is not in sight. For me this implies that MicroContent is not yet on people's radar. So it is further out in the future. Guess that I have to start using Web3.0 or just no longer use the Web2.0 tag.
Nivi has an interesting breakdown of the various Web 2.0 customers/roles. I do not now what the relation is with Web 2.0, but I see a relation with MicroContent. And there is a relation with Attention.
And note that any user can take any of the four roles.
[Inspiration Nova Spivack]
I agree with Martin Lindner and not with Joi Ito. I guess Joi Ito is a bit biased by his gaming fun. I guess he is right for the world of games. I like the idea of augmented reality as 3.0 much better. Once all the geotagged MicroContent is available, it is about time that we put the wireless network into another used: augmented, annotated reality.
[Inspiration Martin Lindner]
Martin Lindner points me to an old article by Paul Ford. Nice that people worried even then about Google. The nice part in this posting however is a vision of the Web as spreadsheet, where everything is linked with everything. I like that view, I share it, but I call it the Microweb.
All these new Web 2.0 wouldbe’s are lacking one functionality: import/subscriptions. Remember data wants to be outside the service. I am not going to upload all my images / bookmarks / blogs / agenda / to-do’s / whatever into each new service. They should offer at least a way to import the stuff. But even better each service should be able to subscribe to a feed of my primary source. For bookmarks this might be delicious, for images it might be Flickr or even better I publish the stuff on my own site in the necessary format.
All these new kids on the block should embrace a format, be it RSS, Atom, Microformat, StructuredBlogging, etc. At the moment I do not perceive any progress here.
Fraser Speirs has the right view on Web 2.0: any Web 2.0 service should support the MVC-model. I totally agree. That is why I want to see MicroContent clients. And Fraser Speirs builds those clients. MVC is a nice other view on API’s, web-interfaces, services and clients.
Nice entry by apophenia on remixing. Remixing is not production, but active consumption. Think of it as personalisation. Nice view.
Here is a mashup matrix. Very nice to see who is doing what. But soon this will become untrackable. There will be just to many examples..
Bokardo created a list of questions, which developers should ask themselves. It is an interesting list, but I would call it a list of Service Requirements. Future services need to add new services for their customers. These new services are based on Web 2.0 ideas. And also a new group of customers can be defined based on API service offerings. I like this list and we need more of them.