SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 86
  1. #26
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    247
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I believe Web 2.0 is a reflection of what were seeing in current site development. These days sites are developed to be more like applications, where in the past, sites were just stand-alone pages with information. It's how were using the information. Digg.com has seemingly taken the mascot-role of this whole concept. Digg.com is nothing more than a news site. However, users are able to submit the news. 'Web 2.0' development allows for user interaction to effect the sites growth. Flickr, Friendster, MySpace etc etc are all example of 2.0 development. They all depend on user interaction for their growth. While 2.0 is a buzz-word, the concept of interaction with sites has been around for some time. I suggest this book to anyone.



    It's a great book that deals with moving past stand-alone informational sites to a more dynamic creation where Developers and Designers come together to create good 'design' ...

    -Brandon

  2. #27
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    247
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't know if anyone visits boagworld.com , but they had a great debate over web 2.0 at this 'geek' dinner they had a few weeks ago. They have a podcast of the debate. Check it out.

    Web 2.0 Podcast Debate

    It's a long mp3, the 2.0 debate starts around 20:00 minutes in. Check it out. Great debate.

  3. #28
    perfect = good enough peach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    -Netherlands-
    Posts
    1,383
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by lo0ol
    Yeah, but I can also use JPEGs to restrict visually impaired people to access information. It's just another consideration to use while under development.
    well, that's why I'm not a fan of image replacement. On my own site all text is scalable. If you're going to use fonts that other people don't have installed you can try sIFR and for photos, use alt text and screenreaders will be fine.

    There is no reason JPEG, or any other image type can be held responsible for accessiblity issues, it's how you use them (ie don't use them for text, but for decoration and photos/artwork).

    But that's just my opinion.

  4. #29
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Taunton
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by VI5
    more a post by google than a web 2.0 post.

    anyway i think i view the whole web 2.0 thing differently to everyone else. As it is purely an idea no-one is wrong, so here I go.

    Content wise i feel it's about being user friendly, making the content clear and well presented (and accessible to the disabled).

    Design wise i think it's about being simple, fast loading and contrasting colours (or colours that actuall have contrast!).
    Isn't that just best practices for the web?

  5. #30
    Drop em if you got em
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    691
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Some other suggestions to design for the Web 2.0:
    - Don't make any original content, simply organize content from others
    - If it's an acronym, use it
    - Vowels are optionl
    - Get VC funding like it's 1999

  6. #31
    I ♥ PHP
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    579
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I guess everyones opinions on what Web 2.0 actually is will vary, but here is my understanding.

    Semantically correct XHTML 1.0 Strict, unobtrusive Javascript adding functionality to a static web page, complete CSS formatting/layout, use of white space, rounded corners, large typeface, a million different social bookmarking links, RSS feeds for every single piece of content available, semi-pastel colours (pale blues, greens, pinks, etc) and slight gradients.

    I think all in all it leads to a much nice looking web, and definitely a more functional one, but I look forward to the day when more designers/developers realise the potential of using decent quality designs as well as all of their current Web 2.0 features. To me, the majority of the sites calling themselves Web 2.0 are relatively boring aesthetically, though beautifully functional.

    Again only an opinion, but I believe the term Web 2.0 is thrown around so often these days as designers/developers attempt to differentiate themselves from the coding hacks of yesteryear.

    Regards,
    Jordan

    Quote Originally Posted by VodkaFish
    - Get VC funding like it's 1999
    That has to be one of the funniest Web 2.0 statements mentioned, as it is oh so true. Thanks for making me laugh.

  7. #32
    Life is short. Be happy today! silver trophybronze trophy Sagewing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Denver, Phang-Nga, Thailand
    Posts
    4,379
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You guys are all behind the curve.

    I've already moved into Web 3.0!
    The fewer our wants, the nearer we resemble the gods. — Socrates

    SAGEWING LLC - QUALITY WEB AND MOBILE APPS. PREMIUM OUTSOURCING SERVICES.
    Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | Google+

  8. #33
    SitePoint Zealot fenryr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Some funny comments in this thread hehe
    I like the web2.0 style a lot though

  9. #34
    Life is short. Be happy today! silver trophybronze trophy Sagewing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Denver, Phang-Nga, Thailand
    Posts
    4,379
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I like the style, too. But, let's get serious - the whole 'Web 2.0' thing is some invented catch-phrase that doesnt mean much.

    Coudnt we just say 'modern web style' or 'well-built websites', etc. All it really means is that you apply good standards and employ best practices.

    There is always someone hanging around waiting to put a marketing-type name on their process, approach, etc. There is nothing new about web 2.0, it's just an ambiguous term that refers to some recently popularized practices, imo. There is not much value to the term. Very dotcom-boom!
    The fewer our wants, the nearer we resemble the gods. — Socrates

    SAGEWING LLC - QUALITY WEB AND MOBILE APPS. PREMIUM OUTSOURCING SERVICES.
    Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | Google+

  10. #35
    SitePoint Evangelist sitedesigner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    On the Computer
    Posts
    436
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ok, so it's basically the set of modern web site designs / layout?
    █ [o] Programmer? PM me!
    █ [o] Getting back into the Business
    █ [o] Sitedesigner

  11. #36
    SitePoint Wizard mPeror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Saudi Arabia
    Posts
    1,724
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by J Windebank
    Semantically correct XHTML 1.0 Strict..
    How about a semantically correct HTML 4.1 Strict? both are the same if you don't server yoru XHTML documents as XML applications.

  12. #37
    I ♥ PHP
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    579
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mPeror
    How about a semantically correct HTML 4.1 Strict? both are the same if you don't server yoru XHTML documents as XML applications.
    I don't agree entirely. I could be wrong, but I thought HTML 4.1 Strict does not require closing tags correctly and allows some deprecated tags and elements? If so, then to me, it makes more sense to stick with XHTML 1.0 Strict.

    Regards,
    Jordan

  13. #38
    SitePoint Guru Lars-Christian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Tromsø, Norway
    Posts
    713
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    To be honest, the first time I heard someone try and describe the term "Web 2.0" to me, I thought: "Oh, so it's basically Flickr?"

    But yeah, as several have pointed out already, it's up to each and one how they wish to interpret the term, because it's basically just the way steps we wish that the web will take, and which directions they are taken. I for one, love more interactivity and simpler, cleaner and more organized designs. Perhaps the whole glossy-techno look will die out as the web 2.0 fad continues!

    Hey, that's my wish for web 2.0 - I should write that down and send it to santa when that time of the year comes around again.

  14. #39
    SitePoint Guru OfficeOfTheLaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Quincy
    Posts
    636
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by J Windebank
    I don't agree entirely. I could be wrong, but I thought HTML 4.1 Strict does not require closing tags correctly and allows some deprecated tags and elements? If so, then to me, it makes more sense to stick with XHTML 1.0 Strict.

    Regards,
    Jordan
    You should probably use xhtml 1.0 transitional then. XHTML 1.0 strict must be sent as application/xhtml+xml, which IE will try to download rather than parse.

    James Carr, Software Engineer


    assertEquals(newXPJob, you.ask(officeOfTheLaw));

  15. #40
    l º 0 º l silver trophybronze trophy lo0ol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Palo Alto
    Posts
    5,329
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by peach
    well, that's why I'm not a fan of image replacement. On my own site all text is scalable. If you're going to use fonts that other people don't have installed you can try sIFR and for photos, use alt text and screenreaders will be fine.

    There is no reason JPEG, or any other image type can be held responsible for accessiblity issues, it's how you use them (ie don't use them for text, but for decoration and photos/artwork).

    But that's just my opinion.
    That's entirely my point.
    .
    Zach Holman
    good-tutorialsblogtwitterlast.fm

  16. #41
    SitePoint Addict gl3nnx's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    at http://www.gl3nnx.net
    Posts
    343
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i love web design 2.0!

  17. #42
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just a buzzword attempt to unite and organize the web design and developent community.

  18. #43
    SitePoint Addict dannyh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    although I feel "web 2.0" and its apparent influence on graphic design is mostly a fad, it does bring useful and good practices to the table that I hope stick.

    There is nothing wrong with big fonts - if it makes sense for the particular application. Clean, bright colors are great - if they work for the purpose. Rounded corners and gradiants are really attractive - if they accomplish a particular goal you are setting out for with the design.

    In my mind I try and be positive and think that "web 2.0" is about the mating of nice design and usability.

    Usable, yet attractive.

  19. #44
    I ♥ PHP
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    579
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by OfficeOfTheLaw
    You should probably use xhtml 1.0 transitional then. XHTML 1.0 strict must be sent as application/xhtml+xml, which IE will try to download rather than parse.
    According to the w3c, XHTML 1.0 documents may be served as either "application/xhtml+xml" or "text/html". I believe that you may legally use either, and obviously would use "text/html" due to the Internet Explorer bug you have described.

    I may be wrong, but this is how I understood the specification.

    Regards,
    Jordan

  20. #45
    SitePoint Evangelist Scott.Botkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    598
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In my opinion, the web still has the 98-99 feel and I'm pretty sure it will for quite along time. The designs have improved very nicely and I believe the credit goes to the gradient tool for that lol.

    What's next? I don't know but I hope we're all capable of doing this in many years to come, which I believe we will.

  21. #46
    I ♥ PHP
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    579
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by shockbotkins
    What's next? I don't know but I hope we're all capable of doing this in many years to come, which I believe we will.
    If you keep yourself informed of what is going on in the industry, which I am assuming you do simply by being here, then you will manage to keep up with emerging trends.

    Will be easy to keep up-to-date.

    Regards,
    Jordan

  22. #47
    SitePoint Evangelist sitedesigner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    On the Computer
    Posts
    436
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by shockbotkins
    In my opinion, the web still has the 98-99 feel and I'm pretty sure it will for quite along time. The designs have improved very nicely and I believe the credit goes to the gradient tool for that lol.

    What's next? I don't know but I hope we're all capable of doing this in many years to come, which I believe we will.
    No matter how fast we progress, there will always be people who are stuck in the 90s ars far as design goes...
    █ [o] Programmer? PM me!
    █ [o] Getting back into the Business
    █ [o] Sitedesigner

  23. #48
    SitePoint Zealot Cheyne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow. So many web 2.0 haters I am not going into any more web 2.0 descussions. ever

  24. #49
    SitePoint Evangelist sitedesigner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    On the Computer
    Posts
    436
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    haha good idea
    █ [o] Programmer? PM me!
    █ [o] Getting back into the Business
    █ [o] Sitedesigner

  25. #50
    SitePoint Guru Lars-Christian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Tromsø, Norway
    Posts
    713
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by shockbotkins
    What's next? I don't know but I hope we're all capable of doing this in many years to come, which I believe we will.
    Yeah, I think that as long as you manage to stay up to date on the trends within web development, which just hanging around SitePoint should help us all with, there will be plenty of work for us, in the future as well. The fact that it's getting easier to participate online without skills, might even make the demand for those who posses web dev skills even higher. Or so one can hope at least

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheyne
    Wow. So many web 2.0 haters I am not going into any more web 2.0 descussions. ever
    Wait, you're saying people aren't embracing changes? Well there's a first


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •