To say a design is ‘Web 2.0′ means nothing. What it is trying to say is that the design reflects that of a number of sites that work on the new model of increased social interaction, but the term itself has nothing to do with gradients, shiny badges, or even standards, accessibility and validation.

I am sick to the back teeth of the misuse (and infact any use whatsoever) of the term. It has ceased to be useful and should be dropped!

However, it has nothing to do with design. Good design is a given that should be applied to all things in life and to say a design is Web 2.0 means nothing to be.

I’m sick of it.

personally, I’m sick of people being sick of it, but healthy on the War In Iraq, Windows Vista and Blackwater.

However, getting ready for Web 3.0

(Basically a BLANK SCREEN with an href link that links back to itself, the ultimate in crossbrowser compatibility and accessibility, with intrinsic support for multiple devices.

The screen reads the same both vertically, right-left and mirrored. Sample below.

—

(end sample)
C’mon get over it!

Web 2.0, a phrase coined by O’Reilly Media in 2004,[1] refers to a perceived second-generation of Web based communities and hosted services — such as social networking sites, wikis and folksonomies — that facilitate collaboration and sharing between users. O’Reilly Media titled a series of conferences around the phrase, and it has since become widely adopted.

Though the term suggests a new version of the Web, it does not refer to an update to World Wide Web technical specifications, but to changes in the ways systems developers have used the web platform. According to Tim O’Reilly, “Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform.” [2]

Some technology experts, notably Tim Berners-Lee, have questioned whether one can use the term in a meaningful way, since many of the technology components of “Web 2.0″ have existed since the beginnings of the World Wide Web.[3]

Taking this point and Ezekiel’s core values listed above gives (what I think is) a good design philosophy. Not a ‘Web 2.0′ philosophy (let’s ditch the buzzword) but a great base for a website. Using these principles will mean that the website and its designer has a head start.

(Apologies for the bad grammar - I’ve been awake for far too long now.) : )

Seriously though, any time something new is coined to describe an “ideal” it will be turned into a marketing term as quickly as humanly (or inhumanly) as possible.

Our best bet as designers is to say “Yes Mr(s). Client, I will absolutely build you the best Web 2.0 site on the market, and deliver them something that satisfies their functional and technical needs using the most appropriate technologies necessary without compromising common sense design and subtle personal style.

Let the marketing “genius” types wallow in their self created filth, and let us continue to make the world (or internet) a prettier place to play. Diatribe complete.

I often present on accessibility and best practice web development to crowds that are a bit more mainstream than our average crowd. People who don’t know these concepts, yet could benefit from learning about them and spreading them on to their companies or developers.

I always see *waaaaay* more interest if I name my presentation something like, “Web 2.0 and Accessibility”, etc. (you get my drift I am sure).

More people show up, and also more people listen when they are interested and learn more.

I think I have found a loophole here! (p.s. It is painful to use the term, but I am taking one for the team I figure)

…we [and our work] are part of this constant process of renewal.

I don’t allow the words to enter my mind as I believe good designers will design “Web 2.0″ as a matter of course because it’s about creating great websites.

But what if you use the ‘buzzword from hell’ for the powers of good? :-)

I like your thinking there, Scott. Good on you.

Could you please elaborate, maybe point out how I could improve?

I agree whit you in one thing… stop saying “i design web 2.0 sites” if you only copy the style. That`s not 2.0