25April2008
Posted by Dan under: web development.
I dreaded that we’d soon reach the point of trying to label what web3.0 would be. The fantasy, the conjecture - stop now! While web2.0 grouped a collection of technologies, design and concepts, it’s implied versioning of the web is proving counter-productive. These are tools to help us do our jobs as developers, buzzwords to explain concepts to investors and that’s about it. Read/Write Web has a decent post on this.
As that post illustrates, the v3 of the web has many ideas because the web doesn’t work like that. There are a lot of great and interesting technologies out there but let’s not try and dump them all together, eh.
There are still many sites out there which aren’t accessible, which aren’t usable and some which have no point at all. Are these relics of web 1.0 or v1.5? While we look to the future of cloud computing and the socialisation of the web, we need to keep pushing to bring every site up to a decent standard with these basics in mind. The average user might not have even heard of web2.0 (thank god) and these are the people that need our help as developer now.
Make sites work better for people. Leave the buzzwords at home.
** UPDATED **
I just read this piece over at OnStartUps, which feels much the me way - and this one - web4.0, are you kidding?
24April2008
Posted by Dan under: mobile web.
I read this piece on The Register this week, which isn’t the first I’ve read recently about the death of the mobile web. It’s sad passing will be mourned by 1000s, but many will probably not notice.
The sad thing is that this needs to happen. Not because it’s inherently a bad idea but because at least one part of the equation hasn’t added up. I still believe that access to web-based service can and should happen through any device that can do it but the history of the mobile web to date has necessitated it’s death.
Way back in 1997 I remember reading about WAP and how it would bring the Internet to mobile phones; a couple of years later there were adverts on TV from telecom companies telling you the web was on your phone. The reality was there were hardly any sites to use (in the traditional chicken and egg scenario) and the speed of the network and devices was doggedly slow. Want to check on eBay? Wait 3 minutes and it’ll cost you £1…sounds like the future is here!
The reality is that unless the user experience is compelling, usable and affordable very few will ever use it. The iPhone is a step in the right direction but the whole answer. Now we have a device that is compelling to use and that people are prepared to pay for so are monthly bills aren’t (entirely) subsidising our handsets. This allows the operators to offer flat-rate web usage, which makes the service usable and for roughly what we’d expect to pay for a monthly contract.
With the iPhone we can also browse any website rather than mobile-only sites. Good in that you can get to anything you’d normally use but, in my opinion it’s also a bad thing.
We still have the cross-handset, cross-browser issues to contend with in providing mobile sites (check Cameron Moll’s book) but in my opinion there are different needs of someone accessing through a different device. It’s understanding the service you’re offering on the web and what of it people might need on the move.
I think the history of the mobile web so far has to die in order to start the next chapter and hopefully we can learn from it.
16April2008
Posted by Dan under: social web.
I’ve long been behind the idea of data portability, especially in relation to social networks but does any member of the public actually care about this - or should they?
On the face of it, people have accounts for specific needs - Amazon because you are a customer, Facebook because that’s what you use for your social networking, etc. So why would DP make any difference to them? Surely it’s a technical problem with a technical solution?
While that is the case, I believe that it will change the nature of how people can use sites and services on the web. Let’s be fanciful for a second and suppose that we’re in a time when this is possible:
A new service is launched that appeals. You read about it and click join up. You paste in your OpenID (or equivalent) with your password, the service checks your details, you confirm that you give them access to the data they’ve requested and boom - you’re in. Not only that but if any of your friends use the service, you’re already connected. Out in your ‘personal dashboard’ (or social network home page), you can see your lifestream of who you know is doing what on which service and use your favourite tools to communicate and share across services.
You should be able to move from one service to the next painlessly. This also means that the service needs to work around value beyond using it’s closed walls to amass a number of users. Their service needs to have a clear USP and offer real benefit to their users or people can move on.
Facebook in particular seem to be embracing open access but on a very one way street; while you can access limited data sets from their API, they’re bring in more data from outside their system, making the proposition that you don’t need to go anywhere else - you can do everything you want here! But the fact that once you become so embedded in a silo like theirs it’s not easy to leave limits the chances of anyone trying another social networking service. Good fr Facebook but not great for users - in my opinion.
The reason I like DP and OpenID is the fact that you should own your stuff - the information people have about you and the files and media you share. Services should be a mechanism to facilitate a need - like social networking with communication, Flickr for photo sharing, etc. With portability, services will have to raise their game to retain users, which I believe should also give real merit to high company valuations for those that succeed in an open environment.
The public shouldn’t care about it now, but they should notice once a solution is found how they have more freedom and ownership, which if it’s successful would be a powerful thing.
** UPDATE **
Check out this article which is kind of related: http://techwhimsy.com/data-portability-do-normal-people-even-care
27March2008
Posted by Dan under: social web.
I’ve long been a fan of what OpenID is trying to do - effectively provide a means of managing log-ins and accounts of many sites from once source; your identity. With it being a technical solution it’s had problems breaking through into the mainstream. Maybe because it’s not used on many big sites that non-techies might use or it’s not clearly labelled as such.
A little while ago both AOL & Orange / France Telecom made all of their accounts openIDs, so these could be used for logging in to other sites with but I’m not sure how well this has worked. Maybe a new start-up called ClickPass could put a better public face on it?
There’s a great blow-by-blow account of their launch day, which is interesting in itself but what about ClickPass itself? From reading the developer docs, it should be pretty easy to implement and they offer guidance of how to implement in many languages from PHP to Java to .net and more.
Who knows, maybe this could actually breakthrough?
26March2008
Posted by Dan under: social web.
Just a quick mention of a couple of articles I’ve picked up on today. The first over at E-commerce Times talking about the fact that traditional advertising isn’t really working and the other from Publishing 2.0 about the decommoditisation of social networks.
I’ve long been confused at most social networks reliance on conventional web advertising on social spaces. These banner ads don’t jump from your thought pattern (While looking at what my friend is up to and share some photos with my network, I might check out that new Land Rover they’re advertising to me!). There is no natural context to ads like this, unless you target groups. The group spaces aren’t too different from those in Yahoo! or others that’ve been around for years. They have a specific purpose for the group and there is context that could be used for advertising. It’s true that targeted ads could be found based on what you have on your profile but this would be a complex mission and one that I’m not convinced would even bring real results.
The E-commerce Times article talks about people recommending products to each other - effectively taking word of mouth with e-commerce. You then reap the rewards of promoting these products or services. Is it just me or does that almost seem like that scene from the Truman Show when he’s at home with his wife suspecting all is not what it seems and she keeps dropping adverts into conversation? Social networks need a better business/advertising model but is tarnishing every word we say by potentially trying to make a few quid out of our social network wrong?
On the other hand, the post at Publishing 2.0 is pretty sound, talking about Facebook’s precarious situation with being open. While they refer directly to OpenSocial, this could apply to the DataPortability group or the Diso project or any number of other collaborations to encourage freedom of access to our ’social graph’. I think it’s true what they’re saying; if you forget for a moment that all your friends might be using it and that you could go anywhere, there’s not enough differentiating features on Facebook. Is that why it’s afraid to open up?
25March2008
Posted by Dan under: web development.
I suppose I’m in a pondering mood…
Isn’t the nature of the web that it is likely to always be broken? Literally anyone can make a website using any number of tools or hand-coded. If you want to code your own HTML or javascript or anything else, there’s no real elitism there. If you fancy a crack at it, you can. That’s an amazingly powerful thing and one of the best things about the Internet, but it’s also it’s also a major hindrance in the evolution of the medium.
As an experienced web developer, you have to still deal with the way that browsers are different in their interpretation of standards - Internet Explorer even has an issue with it’s own legacy in trying to adhere to common standards. Anyone can make a website but not even every professional agency sticks to accessibility standards or produces code that is good for their own search engine rankins so what chance does ‘the semantic web’ have?
Are we in the inevitable position that because the Internet so quickly grew beyond it’s intent that we’re always trying to find ways of working around the inherent imperfections that the majority of web pages have (as there are many floating out there which may still be live from their inception more than 10 years ago).
Maybe it should be our job as web developers to share our knowledge more freely with people that want to learn how to make sites and always encourage software (and therefore browser) vendors to aim for the best we can achieve. The web is for everyone but maybe those with experience should help it to move on.
23March2008
Posted by Dan under: social web.
Yahoo! this week announced how it was to be using microformats such as hCard and location (geo-tags) in it’s search results, which is a great plus in terms of relevancy and in the field of the semantic web. A truly semantic web needs to understand language and to derive context from what we would ask a search engine to deliver accurate results and RDF could well assist in that. However the question needs to be asked how far people (ie. users) need the technology to go.
Read the rest of this entry »
21March2008
Posted by Dan under: web development.
Since I was at university I’ve been working with and developing content management systems. For my final project at uni, I researched into the usability and accessibility of open source systems, most of which didn’t rate highly. Read the rest of this entry »
12March2008
Posted by Dan under: General; web development.
It struck me as I’ve mentioned to friends and family that now I’m using my blog more, just how unusual the concept is it so many people. Why would anyone want to write on the web something that (potentially) no-one would ever read?
First of all, I’m a believer in the fact that everyone knows something the next person doesn’t or their lives or life choices might be of interest to someone else. In a professional or niche field especially. Read the rest of this entry »
8March2008
Posted by Dan under: web development.
I’ve got to admit that I do end up doing this from time to time - throwing everything at a project or several projects and feeling burnt out by it. I’m not quite there again but not far off. The thing I still wrestle with is knowing when to stop. Deadlines exist and from time to time there will be a bottleneck it’s difficult to work around but working to the point of burn out is often counter-productive. Read the rest of this entry »
