Skip to main content

Home/ The Meth Lab/ Group items tagged remix

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
bkozlek

What Is Web 2.0 - 5 views

oreilly.com/...what-is-web-20.html

shared by bkozlek on 29 Jan 11 - Cached
  • So fundamental is the shift from software as artifact to software as service that the software will cease to perform unless it is maintained on a daily basis.
  • It's also no accident that scripting languages such as Perl, Python, PHP, and now Ruby, play such a large role at web 2.0 companies. Perl was famously described by Hassan Schroeder, Sun's first webmaster, as "the duct tape of the internet." Dynamic languages (often called scripting languages and looked down on by the software engineers of the era of software artifacts) are the tool of choice for system and network administrators, as well as application developers building dynamic systems that require constant change.
  • Users must be treated as co-developers, in a reflection of open source development practices (even if the software in question is unlikely to be released under an open source license.) The open source dictum, "release early and release often" in fact has morphed into an even more radical position, "the perpetual beta," in which the product is developed in the open, with new features slipstreamed in on a monthly, weekly, or even daily basis.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Cal Henderson, the lead developer of Flickr, recently revealed that they deploy new builds up to every half hour.
  • Support lightweight programming models that allow for loosely coupled systems. The complexity of the corporate-sponsored web services stack is designed to enable tight coupling. While this is necessary in many cases, many of the most interesting applications can indeed remain loosely coupled, and even fragile. The Web 2.0 mindset is very different from the traditional IT mindset! Think syndication, not coordination. Simple web services, like RSS and REST-based web services, are about syndicating data outwards, not controlling what happens when it gets to the other end of the connection. This idea is fundamental to the internet itself, a reflection of what is known as the end-to-end principle. Design for "hackability" and remixability. Systems like the original web, RSS, and AJAX all have this in common: the barriers to re-use are extremely low. Much of the useful software is actually open source, but even when it isn't, there is little in the way of intellectual property protection. The web browser's "View Source" option made it possible for any user to copy any other user's web page; RSS was designed to empower the user to view the content he or she wants, when it's wanted, not at the behest of the information provider; the most successful web services are those that have been easiest to take in new directions unimagined by their creators. The phrase "some rights reserved," which was popularized by the Creative Commons to contrast with the more typical "all rights reserved," is a useful guidepost.
  • bkozlek on 29 Jan 11
     
    in revisiting this classic from 2005, it became obvious to me that much of higher ed is still stuck in a pre-web or at least web 1.0 model of software as artifact, and not software as service. 
  • ...5 more comments...
  • Cole Camplese on 29 Jan 11
     
    Brad, this piece was in so many ways my introduction to the bigger picture of web 2.0 back in 2005. I remember reading it and wondering, "why the hell didn't we write that in IST?" This is the original notion of the "architecture of participation" that I continue to discuss in talks I give to this day. So many people still look at the web through the lens of 1996. I can't agree with you enough that HE does indeed think about the web in 1.0 terms -- while that is changing it isn't happening in the development shops we frequent. I still see this as required reading. I am pushing this into the ITS SLT diigo group to help it get (re)noticed.
  • bkozlek on 30 Jan 11
     
    What strikes me about it this time is that there is a connection between the then new technological methodologies and infrastructures and the new architecture of participation.
  • Chris Long on 30 Jan 11
     
    Do you two think the emergence of the app store changes the dynamic of things? Are we developing apps that will put course communities in the hands of students wherever they are?
  • Cole Camplese on 30 Jan 11
     
    I do think the notion and emergence of Apps themselves change the dynamic of things, but I'm not sure if the Store (either mobile or desktop) challenges the thinking in the linked piece. The question I walk around with is if Apps themselves support the collaborative spirit of web 2.0 ... I have trouble pulling my thoughts together on that one. Clearly Facebook as a website is very collaborative and represents the web 2.0 ethos, but having access to that in my hand as an app brings in a new set of opportunities. Are those positive? To me, yes but I still struggle with the ideas of the closed web (fb), the open web (my blog), and apps. All of those are a framework for participation and perhaps debating the differences isn't important at all. This isn't exactly a great example, but with our blackboard pilot this Spring we have enabled mobile access. I have the Bb app installed on my iPad and can easily log into my sandbox course. I do wonder if I were actually teaching with it how having on the go access to that environment would change my own level of participation and attention. I know I spend a heck of a lot of time in the social networks from my iPhone and iPad -- not so much from my laptop. I bet that would be true of the course management system as well, but I don't have any evidence yet to support that thinking. I'd love to get a bunch of students together and see how mobile access changes the way they participate.
  • Chris Long on 30 Jan 11
     
    Let's get those students together in the Liberal Arts. I can have John work on putting something together. Who should we include and how should it be organized?
  • Cole Camplese on 30 Jan 11
     
    We would need to create a "course" in our Bb instance to see what could go on. The only way for it to work is if it is somehow connected to a real experience. I am open to thoughts ...
  • bkozlek on 31 Jan 11
     
    I don't think the emergence of app/app store models challenges the thinking in the piece, but it does extend the concepts it presents. The app developing tool kits is another way to bring the web service / data/ participatory experience to mobile devices. The web at large wasn't up to the challenge - apps provide a better experience than web interfaces on mobile, or at least it can be argued. HTML/CSS/Javascript versus iOS sdk/Obj C - different ways of writing an interface to the same web back ends. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. Another way it extends the thinking in the piece is that now participating is happening on a more massive scale with people able to participate on the go, not just when they are at their desk. It really raises it to the next level. The amount of data and content being shared continues to mushroom. Participating on the go as become the norm for lead users. I think there is an expectation from the community that mobile access will work well.
1 - 2 of 2
Showing 20▼ items per page