Why Web 2.0 Shouldn’t Be Called Web 2.0
By David Golding
| 
Print This Post
I don’t like it when people call anything cool or snazzy on the internet “Web 2.0.” Whoever came up with it was obviously thinking very geek-ily. Aside from sounding way too technical for the average web user, it connotes that we are in some very early stages of the internet.
My problem is this: I don’t think we ought to settle for just a 2.0 update. We got way passed 2.0 awhile ago. We should be thinking of the web at 5.0, in my mind. What are we going to do next year when developers roll out with websites that exceed the 2.0 expectation? Call those “rich Web 3.0 sites”? Why not simply say that this site or that one is “designed well”? Yes, I believe users at that point will just throw their hands in the air and say, “just give me a good looking, well-developed site!” Instead we have to come up with completely ludicrous tekkie words like “web 2.0.”
No doubt they were PC nuts… Like the latest Windows Vista idea (how many versions are they planning on rolling out now? like 20?): Windows Vista Business, Windows Vista Enterprise, Home Premium, Home Basic, Ultimate…. If we’re like them, we’ll probably have to graduate from Web 2.0 to something like “Web Super Virus-Free Premium” or “Web Non-IE Deluxe.”
Of course, if the Apple nerds had their choice, we’d probably see something like “iWeb” or “iWeb Supro.”
“Web Sweetness” might be a good idea….
Comments
Submit Comment
