There has been a lot of buzz around Web 2.0. The idea is that the old Internet companies (ostensibly Web 1.0) were built on a model that did not last. When the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, many of those companies could not adapt or survive. So what is Web 2.0? Tim O’Reilly describes Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that includes:
- The perpetual beta
- Software that gets better the more people use it
- Hackability (Google Maps)
- Participation, not publishing (blogs)
- Tagging, not taxonomy (del.icio.us; Flickr)
- Radical trust (Wikipedia)
- Emergent
- Rich user interface (AJAX)
- Small pieces loosely joined
So what does the Web 2.0 look like? I took screenshots from a series of websites consider part of the Web 2.0 crowd to look at their design in search of a common thread.
What did I find?
- Lots of white and grey. Most of the sites used a white background with little splashes of bright colors for some text.
- Lots of Arial. Most of the sites used Arial. Is it just me, or does Arial feel like 1970′s Helvetica signage?
- Very light on the images. Mainly text-based interfaces.
- Most advertising is text-based (i.e. Adsense)
- Greater emphasis on social interaction (sharing, syndication, comments, trackbacks, etc.)
When I contrast the design and function of these “next-generation” websites with my own, there’s a huge difference. Is it time for a network-wide refresh?
What do you like/dislike about this new breed of websites?
Technorati Tags: Web 2.0
No related posts.
Well… I like the fact that more companies and individuals are starting to see that less is more. I’m a minimalist at heart. The more features clutter there is on something, the less likely I am to like it. Take Google.com – the home page is virtually empty, but that hasn’t stopped Google from becoming one of the most successful companies of the last few years.
I don’t like that some of the sites you sampled look almost childishly simple, like the Flock site. It reminds me too much of the pure-text movement that wanted no images of any kind on any websites. Some images and color are good; the key is simply not too much.
I find it funny that most sites use sans-serif fonts, even though all my english professors have told us that serif is easier to read. Bah. I think your site(s) are probably fine as is…. there has to be a balance between too much and too little.
Well… I like the fact that more companies and individuals are starting to see that less is more. I’m a minimalist at heart. The more features clutter there is on something, the less likely I am to like it. Take Google.com – the home page is virtually empty, but that hasn’t stopped Google from becoming one of the most successful companies of the last few years.
I don’t like that some of the sites you sampled look almost childishly simple, like the Flock site. It reminds me too much of the pure-text movement that wanted no images of any kind on any websites. Some images and color are good; the key is simply not too much.
I find it funny that most sites use sans-serif fonts, even though all my english professors have told us that serif is easier to read. Bah. I think your site(s) are probably fine as is…. there has to be a balance between too much and too little.
The minimalist approach reminds me of punk rock. Back in the day, punk rock was considered by some to be the most “democratic” rock music. Why? Because it was accessible. Anyone who could play three chords could play punk rock. It didn’t require lots of skill or talent, just a knack for lyrical bite (i.e. “content”). It wasn’t about musical virtuousity but about raw emotion.
The minimalist websites aren’t about impressive graphic design, but simplicity and ultimately content. What they lack in graphical pizazz they make up for with improved performance and Web 2.0 euphoria.
Can you say irrational exuberance?
The minimalist approach reminds me of punk rock. Back in the day, punk rock was considered by some to be the most “democratic” rock music. Why? Because it was accessible. Anyone who could play three chords could play punk rock. It didn’t require lots of skill or talent, just a knack for lyrical bite (i.e. “content”). It wasn’t about musical virtuousity but about raw emotion.
The minimalist websites aren’t about impressive graphic design, but simplicity and ultimately content. What they lack in graphical pizazz they make up for with improved performance and Web 2.0 euphoria.
Can you say irrational exuberance?
First of all, I love the minimalist look. My motto is “Enjoy Simplicity”. I also like light shades of blue on white, and a bit of grey.
I like the idea of interaction though, like commenting on blogs, forums, and contributing to wikis.
What do I think of Web 2.0? I LIKE it!
Yay for text advertising. =)
First of all, I love the minimalist look. My motto is “Enjoy Simplicity”. I also like light shades of blue on white, and a bit of grey.
I like the idea of interaction though, like commenting on blogs, forums, and contributing to wikis.
What do I think of Web 2.0? I LIKE it!
Yay for text advertising. =)