Hello and welcome to my third blog post! Today will be dedicated to exploring Web 2.0 and Web 3.0, their similarities and differences and how they relate. We will also look into how they can be used to manage information and create knowledge. Enjoy!
What is Web 2.0 and 3.0?
While it would appear that before we discuss the relations between the two we should first understand what they actually are; however in this instance I don’t believe it would be constructive. Upon researching these topics I have discovered it is difficult to give each Web a set definition – instead the understanding comes from comparing one to another.
Perhaps the most interesting concept I came across during my research was that it cannot be pinpointed when exactly each web ends and the other begins – instead they slowly evolved over time with each becoming a more complex, advanced version of the last. This confirms the fact that definitions cannot be given, only comparisons drawn.
For research purposes I think it is important to have a division between each version, perhaps it could be the date from which new additions are updated. The definitions then would not be content related but instead when these changes begin. These changes would conclude when reached to a satisfactory level (as decided by operators) and remain stable for a period of time. The next version would then be categorised from when the following set of additions commence. What are your thoughts?
Before 2.0 and 3.0 came 1.0. (Go figure!) It was an introduction to ‘The Web,’ the first form of internet we knew. The main word used to describe Web 1.0 appears to be ‘static.’ It consisted of displays, broadcasted information that we could view but not interact with or participate in.
To sum it up Web 1.0 was:
- Not interactive
The main differentiating factor of Web 2.0 from Web 1.0 is its level of interaction. Unlike Web 1.0 users were able to contribute as opposed to just viewing the presented content. A lot of changes had to take place to make this possible, a main focus being ‘ease of use.’ It makes sense; users are more likely to become involved in websites they find easy to navigate. We mentioned before that a defining characteristic of Web 1.0 was its proprietary nature. This means that all information was owned. What was on the internet was there to be observed, no changes to be made or opinions to be offered. Web 2.0 was then perhaps the internet’s first breakthrough, one that boosted its popularity immensely. A significant feature was perhaps its incorporation of social media (which you can read all about in my first blog post.)
While the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 is quite drastic and easily determined, the difference between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 is slightly more subtle. It is subtle to the point where experts cannot even pinpoint many defining characteristics of the change. It is instead said to be a ‘guessing game’ and subject to personal interpretation. A common opinion is that instead of differentiation via characteristics we should be looking at differentiation via focus. The focus of Web 3.0 appears to be on technology and its incorporation into the internet (specifically ’emphasizing machine-facilitated understanding.’) It is said Web 3.0 will be defined by several unique upcoming technology trends. You can read more about this claim here.
Online users have voiced opinions (thanks to Web 2.0) as to whether or not we have actually reached Web 3.0 yet. I believe we have, or at least have been introduced to its initial phase.
(Retrieved from: https://flatworldbusiness.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/dia85.jpg)
What is information architecture?
Information architecture (IA) is ‘the practice of deciding how to arrange the parts of something to be understandable’ (The Information Architecture Institute)
It exists in many forms, the most relevant being the websites we use on a regular basis. Successful information architecture in this instance would be ease of use – whether or not viewers find navigation manageable. If they do – they will continue using the site. If they don’t – they will leave and find another. It’s as simple as that.
What is the relationship of information architecture to Web 2.0 and 3.0?
Information architecture would have only become necessary when Web 2.0 was introduced. With interaction being a key aspect of both Web 2.0 and Web 3.0, successful IA would have been crucial. What’s the point in an interactive server if the users don’t understand it?
Web 4.0 and Web 5.0
Web 4.0 and 5.0 instead of being concrete are ideas for the future. They again have different focuses to the previously mentioned webs, and whether or not their construction is underway is undetermined. However it is speculated that they will focus on intelligence. This is a concept not unique to Web 4.0 or Web 5.0 however as it was a part of the focus of Web 3.0 also. Web 4.0 and 5.0 may then just be more advanced versions of their predecessors with more similarities than differences.
- What do you think are the defining characteristics of each web?
- What would you like to see in Web 4.0 and Web 5.0?
- Do you agree with my method of web division?
Once again thank you for reading, I hope you enjoyed and took something away from this post.