Jul -- General Chat: If everybody hates web 2.0...

Bagel

Giant Red Paratroopa
without music life would Bb
Level: 75

Posts: 816/1446
EXP: 3802496
For next: 24408

Since: 03-30-09

Pronouns: he/him
From: bear

Since last post: 191 days
Last activity: 7 days

Posted on 01-17-11 05:48:10 PM

Link | Quote

Web 2.0 has been around for so long, you'd think they'd have moved on to 3.0 by now.

Frankly, it persists because the general non-tech-savvy public tends to react to shiny, colorful things. Especially blue on white or bright colors on black. Smooth lines and rounded corners and shadows somehow convey "hey, the guys who run this site know what they're doing!" to the uninformed.

First example off the top of my head: It's why a lot of those scareware fake virus scanner things succeed -- the design of WinFixer Pro's "web site" makes it look "legit" by association with real companies' sites or interfaces that also use the same design philosophy.

____________________

Taryn

Passed away.

Thanks for being a part of us, even if it wasn't always on the best of terms.

1987-2014

Level: 204

Posts: 11262/14742
EXP: 121755522
For next: 1594296

Since: 09-01-09

From: Seattle

Since last post: 10.1 years
Last activity: 9.8 years

Posted on 01-17-11 05:52:49 PM

Link | Quote

I like some Web 2.0 things (wikis, YouTube, Twitter...) but I miss Web 1.0. I like the little independent Web sites of old rather than everything being part of a megaconglomerate corporation.

____________________

TKB Super Mario Bros. • TKB Super Mario Bros., Volume II

Ninji

Birdo
Why did my user title say I'm a toaster anyway
Level: 88

Posts: 1827/2014
EXP: 6639026
For next: 11638

Since: 07-26-07

Pronouns: he/him or they/them
From: Glasgow, Scotland

Since last post: 114 days
Last activity: 7 days

Posted on 01-17-11 05:57:54 PM

Link | Quote

Floating bars, Facebook social plugins, and Like/Tweet/Digg/Share/etc buttons (especially those huge hover panels with links to 30 sites) are the worst parts of "Web 2.0". There are only like .. 2-3 things about it I actually like.

____________________

Jul · The Left Mouse Button · RVLution.net SUPER MARIO 64 BATTLEFORTS: check out the ROM on You-Tube

misterj
Member
Level: 32

Posts: 126/201
EXP: 197955
For next: 8487

Since: 02-15-09

Since last post: 11.0 years
Last activity: 10.8 years

Posted on 01-17-11 06:00:56 PM (last edited by misterj at 01-17-11 03:01 PM)

Link | Quote

Who is "Everybody"? The people who hate it tend to be the people who are afraid of change and are very vocal people. I'm pretty sure that you can't satisfy these people no matter what. They will constantly find a problem (not that there's anything wrong with that) with anything that is adjusted for their liking for any particular reason possible, sometimes it will be with something utterly irrelevant.

There is no pleasing people with invalid criticisms.

Yet, (approximately) 99.999999% of the time, after things change, they submit to it and don't care anymore.

I don't like every new incarnation of Facebook as they come, but once they change, I don't care anymore. Same thing with the new Twitter look. I didn't like the change, but once it happened, I stopped caring. When Wikipedia changed, I stopped caring. When Wikipedia started having big annoying appeals for me to pay for their operating costs, I hated them. Then I stopped caring.

I think those people are just like this.

I don't see any problem with "Web 2.0" itself. The only problem with Web 2.0 is that it's an annoying buzzword that people slap into their sentences to look educated. It does the opposite.

Then, there are the people thinking that others MUST apply Web 2.0 concepts to all webpages or else they suck. OH YOUR PAGE IS TOO STATIC YOU SHOULD MAKE IT SO THE CSS DYNAMICALLY CHANGES WITH AJAX AND FELLATES THE USER SECONDLY ADD A BLOG/RSS FEED AGGREGATOR IMPROVE SEO THAT'LL REALLY HELP YOU GET MORE PAGEVIEWS/TWITTER FOLLOWERS.

These are the worst people.

____________________

ReiNi
さよなら＊へヴン
Level: 124

Posts: 3141/4444
EXP: 21770671
For next: 65930

Since: 07-21-07

Since last post: 6.7 years
Last activity: 3.3 years

Posted on 01-17-11 06:02:32 PM (last edited by Reimu at 01-17-11 03:05 PM)

Link | Quote

Behold this post by the Great and Powerful Trixie!
I see web 2.0 as the new 1990. Replace animated gifs with starbursts and facebook icons, embedded midis with useless flash and java, etc.

But yeah, the deal with it is that the general public is attracted to the shiny look it has. What matters is that it LOOKS user-friendly, even if it is the most horrendous thing in practice. While a more robust site that's actually easy to use might look intitimating.

It sounds stupid, but a site with an square and pointy look and lots of text will look more complex and sophisticated than one with big round buttons with a large font. Of course, this can go any way, with 2.0 sites that are actually properly well done, and a rather large number of other traditional sites that are a terrible mess.

Given that corporations obviously aim to attract the general public, they'll aim for the interface that they preffer, which in turns makes the public expect this interface more.

____________________
Even the strongest runs away from The Great and Powerful Trixie!

Even the strongest runs away from The Great and Powerful Trixie!

Yeah, Trixie layout. I was thinking about doing a Twilight one based on cpu's Stocking one as a joke, but I'm too lazy. Maybe later. Also yes, ponies.

Nicole

she's more meow now than man, twisted and evil

Disk-kun
Level: 146

Posts: 2183/6469
EXP: 38287369
For next: 225925

Since: 07-07-07

Pronouns: she/her
From: Boston, MA

Since last post: 79 days
Last activity: 2 hours

Posted on 01-17-11 06:04:55 PM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by Treeki
Floating bars, Facebook social plugins, and Like/Tweet/Digg/Share/etc buttons (especially those huge hover panels with links to 30 sites) are the worst parts of "Web 2.0". There are only like .. 2-3 things about it I actually like.

I blocked all the "Like" buttons on the internet outside Facebook as they were bugging me... I think I did it when I saw them on a, er, "inappropriate content" site and was like "why would I post this to all my friends".

My biggest issue with Facebook is how it seems to be directly opposed to compartmentalization... I already dislike how since both my family and friends are friends, anything I send will be seen by all of them. (There's probably a way to change this, but they certainly don't make it easy, since Zuckerberg doesn't really believe in privacy)

____________________

Taryn

Passed away.

Thanks for being a part of us, even if it wasn't always on the best of terms.

1987-2014

Level: 204

Posts: 11264/14742
EXP: 121755522
For next: 1594296

Since: 09-01-09

From: Seattle

Since last post: 10.1 years
Last activity: 9.8 years

Posted on 01-17-11 06:07:44 PM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by Imajin
My biggest issue with Facebook is how it seems to be directly opposed to compartmentalization... I already dislike how since both my family and friends are friends, anything I send will be seen by all of them. (There's probably a way to change this, but they certainly don't make it easy, since Zuckerberg doesn't really believe in privacy)

This is a big reason why I won't get Facebook. I have different sets of friends (Jul, other online, RL, mom...) and I wouldn't necessarily say the same thing to my mom or people at work that I would say on Jul's IRC, for instance.

How hard is it to get multiple Facebook accounts? That could help solve that problem.

____________________

TKB Super Mario Bros. • TKB Super Mario Bros., Volume II

Girlydragon
3030

Possibly neither Girly nor Dragon.
Level: 105

Posts: 1511/3030
EXP: 12256986
For next: 5274

Since: 07-21-07

From: Sweden

Since last post: 283 days
Last activity: 2 hours

Posted on 01-17-11 06:08:26 PM

Link | Quote

People you CAN make friend groups and then specify which friend group sees what. It is fully possible. ____________________

misterj
Member
Level: 32

Posts: 127/201
EXP: 197955
For next: 8487

Since: 02-15-09

Since last post: 11.0 years
Last activity: 10.8 years

Posted on 01-17-11 06:12:15 PM (last edited by misterj at 01-17-11 03:12 PM)

Link | Quote

Originally posted by Terra
How hard is it to get multiple Facebook accounts? That could help solve that problem.

I have a friend who did this, and it wasn't worth it at all for her. She ended up merging her internetz and IRL people together because in the end it wasn't worth logging in/out over and over. If what GD says is true (I can't confirm it), then, that's probably not so bad. Edit: Or maybe that's why she ended up merging them.

____________________

Lyskar
12210

-The Chaos within trumps the Chaos without-
Level: 192

Posts: 7704/12211
EXP: 99327855
For next: 545716

Since: 07-03-07

From: 52-2-88-7

Since last post: 7.4 years
Last activity: 7.3 years

Posted on 01-17-11 06:46:30 PM

Link | Quote

Stats

Time/Date
01-17-11 12:46:30 PM
Posts
7704
Days Here
1294
Level
128

Metal_Man88's Post

Web 2.0 is a stupid term that means nothing. That's why I hate it.

There's a difference between "Allows interactivity" and "Shiny buttons, BETA, and gradients." The former I don't hate because... well... this is the internet. More interactivity is a given as technology advances.

But the latter is garbage, and I see going the way of the dinosaurs. Sites which over-rely on advanced CSS features and also over-interactivity also will probably fall the same way. I said it for Myspace (which is in a pit right now), and I'll say it for Facebook.

It's a fad, like many I have seen come and go on the internet. People will rush to defend it now when I say it is going to die, but in the future they will have left for the next big thing, and I will still be around, pointing out how funny those "Facebook dominated days" were, much like the MySpace days look funny to me right now.

That said, I am pro-Web 1.0, and do not believe in unnecessary interactivity. I still make websites using HTML 3.0 and refuse to adopt more recent code than HTML 4.0 transitional. The reason is simple: the newer HTML is a gimmick which constantly goes outdated, while the vast majority of browsers will seemingly always support my "outdated" code. So why bother? I can make code which is shiny but only works in the newest browser, or make something old and enjoy compatibility across a vast ocean of them.

____________________

Eisnaught - SSQ² - Mobius Roleplay - SSS

Nicole

Disk-kun
Level: 146

Posts: 2184/6469
EXP: 38287369
For next: 225925

Since: 07-07-07

Pronouns: she/her
From: Boston, MA

Since last post: 79 days
Last activity: 2 hours

Posted on 01-17-11 06:56:02 PM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by Metal_Man88
That said, I am pro-Web 1.0, and do not believe in unnecessary interactivity. I still make websites using HTML 3.0 and refuse to adopt more recent code than HTML 4.0 transitional. The reason is simple: the newer HTML is a gimmick which constantly goes outdated, while the vast majority of browsers will seemingly always support my "outdated" code. So why bother? I can make code which is shiny but only works in the newest browser, or make something old and enjoy compatibility across a vast ocean of them.

I fall into this category as well, though in my case it's more about being too lazy to learn CSS than any principled stand on compatibility (that's just a convenient byproduct)...

Notice that this post layout uses no CSS at all.

____________________

paulguy

Green Birdo
Level: 93

Posts: 1218/2294
EXP: 8032918
For next: 19892

Since: 09-14-07

From: Buffalo, NY

Since last post: 9.7 years
Last activity: 9.7 years

Posted on 01-17-11 07:14:36 PM

Link | Quote

Paulguy's Post configuration

I just don't like overly bloated sites with gobs and gobs of excessive markup and CSS or way too much slow Javascript, or sites which simply don't work without javascript and/or flash.

Or when there are all kinds of controls scattered around in different places with seemingly no logic or consistency so navigation is a nightmare.

Also, too damn bright and low contrast. Or the fonts are tiny.

____________________

plushifoxed

King Yoshi
la chica dijo...

Mood: The current mood of roxiemika at www.imood.com

Level: 119

Posts: 3675/3990
EXP: 18467087
For next: 462204

Since: 08-22-07

Pronouns: it/its or she/her
From: kamihama city

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day

Posted on 01-17-11 07:30:02 PM

Link | Quote

Supakitsune

"web 2.0" is barely even a thing beyond a buzzword that everyone can use to sound tech savvy (they don't)
websites are websites and usability and design problems are both things whether you're on tripod or twitter
hating something just because it's new is utterly idiotic and i have a lot of contempt for people who do that

____________________

plushifoxed

King Yoshi
la chica dijo...

Mood: The current mood of roxiemika at www.imood.com

Level: 119

Posts: 3676/3990
EXP: 18467087
For next: 462204

Since: 08-22-07

Pronouns: it/its or she/her
From: kamihama city

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day

Posted on 01-17-11 07:32:43 PM

Link | Quote

Supakitsune

also i fucking love you treeki

____________________

Taryn

Passed away.

Thanks for being a part of us, even if it wasn't always on the best of terms.

1987-2014

Level: 204

Posts: 11265/14742
EXP: 121755522
For next: 1594296

Since: 09-01-09

From: Seattle

Since last post: 10.1 years
Last activity: 9.8 years

Posted on 01-17-11 07:33:42 PM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by paulguy
Or the fonts are tiny.

This.

Ugh, developers, can't you set your font bigger than 8-point? Especially when there are those huge empty borders on each side that take up like half the page width and a navigation pane and ads galore. Nix the blank borders and make the text bigger, dammit.

Also, I hate when Web sites split everything into multiple pages which are each very small. I find it much easier to use the scroll wheel than to click on the tiny icon for the next page, and with everything on one page it's a lot easier to search for text, too.

____________________

TKB Super Mario Bros. • TKB Super Mario Bros., Volume II

Nicole

Disk-kun
Level: 146

Posts: 2185/6469
EXP: 38287369
For next: 225925

Since: 07-07-07

Pronouns: she/her
From: Boston, MA

Since last post: 79 days
Last activity: 2 hours

Posted on 01-17-11 07:35:12 PM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by Terra
Originally posted by paulguy
Or the fonts are tiny.

This.

Ugh, developers, can't you set your font bigger than 8-point? Especially when there are those huge empty borders on each side that take up like half the page width and a navigation pane and ads galore. Nix the blank borders and make the text bigger, dammit.

Also, I hate when Web sites split everything into multiple pages which are each very small. I find it much easier to use the scroll wheel than to click on the tiny icon for the next page, and with everything on one page it's a lot easier to search for text, too.

I can kind of see the reason for borders on the page, actually- I would assume that most people nowadays are using widescreen monitors, but it's usually faster to read a page in a narrower column than a wide one.

____________________

Xkeeper

Level: 263

Posts: 18702/25353
EXP: 297161167
For next: 1799286

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: they/them/????????

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 17 hours

Posted on 01-17-11 08:37:51 PM

Link | Quote

Originally posted by Supakitsune
"web 2.0" is barely even a thing beyond a buzzword that everyone can use to sound tech savvy (they don't)
websites are websites and usability and design problems are both things whether you're on tripod or twitter
hating something just because it's new is utterly idiotic and i have a lot of contempt for people who do that

The problem is that the whole concept of "web 2.0" perpetuates these design problems.

For example, look at how many sites use jQuery for everything - there are even several that load the entire page content dynamically. As in, you get a navbar and logo, and the page is a whole separate request.

Which means that if you disable Javascript -- as I tend to do pretty often, and (obviously) as a lot of indexing robots do -- you get nothing. You get a blank page. It also means that if something doesn't load, you have to refresh the entire page and hope that everything loads this time, because instead of having all the content in one request (with images/styling separate), you get... surprise, just "Loading, please wait". On a bad connection? Sorry, fuck you. Have fun reloading the page 20 times to get everything to work right.

The fun of Ajax doesn't stop there, since it's not a real page transition your back/forward buttons don't work, either. Entering a form? Better hope you can remember everything you entered, since if they don't give you a back option, well, you're screwed! Surprise. Oh, and want to link to a page? Better hope they're not using that retarded "hashbang" shit that seems to be floating around, because (surprise) if you have Javascript off, that page will never, ever know that you even have that tag... and even if you do, it's going to load all the initial content anyway until it goes "Oh, there's a hashbang here, I'd better load this page instead".

As an added bonus, the idea of keeping everything on one page and never having anything else means that if a bug appears, it'll always be there on your screen

I had a New Twitter (urgh) window open that had about 4 floating username tooltips that wouldn't go away unless I refreshed. Pretty great, really.

Web 2.0 has a lot of concepts. It's not just some design buzzword (it is), it's this idea that everything should be shiny, flashy, and that cramming as much crap onto a single page is the best way to do it, using Ajax/other crap to provide error messages/all this other bullshit information.

____________________

Keitaro

Fire Snake
LOVELY ARRANGEMENT. VOLCANO BAKEMEAT
Level: 70

Posts: 696/1191
EXP: 2901742
For next: 114069

Since: 09-09-08

From: California

Since last post: 4.1 years
Last activity: 3.8 years

Posted on 01-17-11 09:43:39 PM (last edited by Keitaro at 01-17-11 06:55 PM)

Link | Quote

Originally posted by Girlydragon
Facebook ... done right ... same with youtube.

thanks, I needed a good laugh today

also I always thought Web 2.0 was this big attempt at looking classy, sleek, "modern" and just...unnecessarily confusing, as most of the mainstream websites which have gone this route seem to have adopted this principle. I personally can't stand websites that are complex just for the sake of it. Like oh, just because you have the ability to code super complicated, interactive menus and fancy advanced features doesn't always mean you should.

Register - Login
Views: 99846666	Main - Memberlist - Active users - Calendar - Wiki - IRC Chat - Online users Ranks - Rules/FAQ - Stats - Latest Posts - Color Chart - Smilies	05-04-22 12:40:35 AM

Query execution time:	0.083164 seconds
Script execution time:	0.044455 seconds
Total render time:	0.127619 seconds