web 2.0 definitions dump

Dario de Judicibus (IBM)

"Web 2.0 is a knowledge-oriented environment where human interactions generate content that is published, managed and used through network applications in a service-oriented architecture."


Eric Schmidt (CEO Google, Seoul Digital Forum, May 29 - 31 2007)

Mature Web 2.0 (in fact he said "3.0", identifying 2.0 with AJAX) ... "will ultimately be seen as applications that are pieced together. They are relatively small, the data is in the cloud, the applications can run on any device, PC or mobile phone, the applications are very fast and they are very customizable. They will be distributed virally ... That's a very different application model than we'd ever seen in computing ..."

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." -- many of the technology components of "Web 2.0" have existed since the early days of the Web.

O'Reilly considers that Eric Schmidt's abridged slogan, don't fight the Internet, encompasses the essence of Web 2.0 — building applications and services around the unique features of the Internet. ...
They argued that the web had become a platform, with software above the level of a single device, leveraging the power of the "Long Tail", and with data as a driving force. According to O'Reilly and Battelle, an architecture of participation where users can contribute website content creates network effects. Web 2.0 technologies tend to foster innovation in the assembly of systems and sites
composed by pulling together features from distributed, independent
developers (a kind of "open source" development and an end to the
software-adoption cycle (the so-called "perpetual beta"). Web 2.0 technology encourages lightweight business models enabled by syndication of content and of service and by ease of picking-up by early adopters.

Level-3 applications, the most "Web 2.0"-oriented, only exist on the
Internet, deriving their effectiveness from the inter-human connections
and from the network effects that Web 2.0 makes possible, and growing
in effectiveness in proportion as people make more use of them.

"...all those Internet utilities and services sustained in a data base
which can be modified by users whether in its content (adding, changing
or deleting- information or associating metadates with the existing
information), or how to display them, or in content and external aspect
simultaneously."

According to Best,
the characteristics of Web 2.0 are: rich user experience, user
participation, dynamic content, metadata, web standards and
scalability. Three further characteristics that Best did not mention
about web 2.0: openness, freedom and collective intelligence by way of user participation – all should be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0.

The sometimes complex and continually evolving technology infrastructure of Web 2.0 includes server-software, content-syndication, messaging-protocols, standards-oriented browsers with plugins and extensions, and various client-applications. The differing, yet complementary approaches of such elements provide Web 2.0 sites with information-storage,
creation, and dissemination challenges and capabilities that go beyond
what the public formerly expected in the environment of the so-called
"Web 1.0".

Web 2.0 websites typically include some of the following features/techniques:

• rich Internet application techniques, often Ajax-based
• semantically valid XHTML and HTML markup
• microformats extending pages with additional semantics
• folksonomies (in the form of tags or tagclouds, for example)
• Cascading Style Sheets to aid in the separation of presentation and content
• REST and/or XML- and/or JSON-based APIs
• syndication, aggregation and notification of data in RSS or Atom feeds
• mashups, merging content from different sources, client- and server-side
• weblog-publishing tools
• wiki or forum software, etc., to support user-generated content

microinformation client = transistor radio

So a tiny start-up company called "Sony" built portable,
battery-powered transistor radios people could carry around with them.
Sure, the sound was terrible, but who cared? Then, with the experience
and revenue stream from the portables, Sony improved its technology to
produce cheap, low-end transistor amplifiers that were "good enough" for home use, and used
those revenues to improve the technology further and produce better
radios. Today, vacuum tubes are only used in ultra-high-end amplifiers
in concerts or recording studios. Vacuum tubes still sound slightly
better, but most people find the much cheaper product adequate. (another review of Innovator's Dilemma, Motley Fool, 1999, from Google Cache)

...
" * Don't try to build a better X, where X is something dominated by a large company. X can be an operating system, personal computer, car, whatever. I think Be Inc. was a classic example of this (great computer/OS but crushed by incumbents)
* Don't build something that could be a feature for one of the X above. Chances are the big company will re-implement your feature. (Apple Dashboard vs Konfabulator)
* Create something new in a "niche" market. This something new can have amazing future potential, but it should by niche-y enough to be ignored by the large players, at least until its too late
* Become self sustaining as quickly as possible. The lower cost structure of a startup allows the revenue from new technology to be significant. This allows the startup to enter what Christenson calls the "sustaining innovation" part of its curve. Thats where all companies want to be."

technology transfer / innovation is highly rhetorical by nature

But these processes are quite complex, and "highly rhetorical in
nature. That is, at their core these processes involve individuals and
groups negotiating their visions of technologies and appliacations,
markets and users in what they all hope is common enterprise." (Stephen
Doheny-Farina, Rhetoric, Innovation, Technology. Case Studies of
Technical Communication in Technology Transfer. MIT Press 1992, p.4)

>> Most people thought that technological innovation, "the entire process from R&D in the laboratory to successful commercialization in the marketplace," was automatic: "Traditionally, we have thought that siccessful commercialization of R&D was the result of an automatic process that began with scientific research and the moved to development, financing, manufacturing, and marketing ... " (Kozmetsky 1990, p.23)

mobility

i'm interested in the dialectics of mobility:

(a) geo-mobility: ICT enhancing the concrete embodied experiences of the First World, and

(b) supermodern 'mobility': being mobile in "Non-spaces" (Marc Augé), like public transport, the car, the Mall, the airport etc., where one really is being mobile within an abstract digital mediasphere ("the Web", but also immediate nearness via mobile phone). In this case the embodied 'primary' world is enhancing the abstract one, turning the notions of #primary' vs. 'secondary' upside down.

attention flow: Mind like Water, Beached Fish, River of News, Panta Rhei

der unterschied zwischen Linda Stone's Continuous Partial Attention (cpa), bzw. der continuous cpa (als dauerzustand), und der micro-attention ist ja der: es geht um das design einer User Experience (CPA-UX), in der man keinen alert-stress hat. stress, weil man glaubt etwas zu verpassen (Linda Stone) bzw. weil man glaubt sofort "antworten" zu müssen (der berühmte Telefon-klingelt-Effekt).

es geht darum, einen zustand herzustellen, der dem "Mind Like Water" von David GTD Allen entspricht, der ohnehin eine versteckte theorie der Microcontent-Zirkulation geschrieben hat. ich brauche keinen stress zu haben, weil ich weiß, dass das system (das ich mit minimalem aufwand bediene) mir alles wichtige früher oder später wieder zuspielt. es ist "in the loop".
genau das sollte der MicroPulse tun. er ist sozusagen eine McLuhanMaschine (siehe auch Yiibu's mobiles McLuhanMicrocontent Dings.)

das entspräche dem unterschied des "fisch im wasser" der medien, den McLuhan beschrieben hat, und einem gestressten menschen im taucheranzug, oder bloß mit schnorchel, oder mit gar nichts, der sich in schmutzige meeresfluten wirft, nach dem tsunami. es ist ja argumentierbar, dass der Information Overload eigentlich nur genau da entsteht, wo eine alte art, mit medien und information umzugehen, auf eine neue ökologische situation trifft. abschmelzen der polkappen.

dann geht es eben gar nicht um "zuviel information" -- die welt ist eh immer zuviel information, mitmenschen sind eh immer stress, nachdenken ist eh immer mühsam, schreiben noch viel mehr, und jedes informations- und kommunikations-ereignis wird dann noch stressiger, wenn permanenter vibirierender selbst/weltzweifel untergründig wirkt.

im übrigen: auch was Stone's cpa betrifft, müsste man wohl unterscheiden die cpa der Blackberry-junkies (e-mail-driven) von der cpa 2.0, Nerd Attention Deficit Disorder. die ist nämlich anders, mehr die idee, dass draußen "etwas geschieht", und das kann twitter-mäßig social presence sein, oder "news", und man will davon vitalisiert werden, intellektuell und emotional. (also nicht als persönliche botschaft, sondern als teilnahme an einem größerem geschehen, das nicht mich persönlich meint.)

Winer, Allen, McLuhan, Gelernter, Heraclit. Große Antike Philosophen. Der River of News ist der Heraklit'sche Lifestream. "Denjenigen, die in dieselben Flüsse steigen, fließen andere und andere Wasser ... denn in denselben Strom vermag man nicht zweimal zu steigen."

MicroPulse Pitch deutsch

versuchsweise und halb-privat in Slideshare hochgeladen, um zu sehen, wie sich das anfühlt. Work in Progress.

Interessant: Erstmals kann ich anscheinend Ernst machen damit, Sachen anders aufzuschreiben als mit Word. Die letzten Powerpoints waren ein Anfang, aber da ging es um Bilder.

Jetzt gleich mit G-Presentation begonnen (ausgezeichnet als Mikrotext-Editor).
Dann die Texte in ein Text-File kopiert und wieder überarbeitet. Dann wieder in G-Presentation. Interessant, dass dann plötzlich anders formuliert wird (in beide Richtungen).

attention (research)

Scott Wilson, who is a psychologist too, has pointed me to his teacher's (Steve Tipper) work on attention.

here are some quick findings following the hint (pdf):
(#) Steve Tipper (2005), Memories of attention. On the retrieval of attention processes from memory.
(#) Steve Shimozaki , Lecture/presentation on Attention (good visuals!)
(#) Jon Driver 2001, A selective review of selective attention research from the past century
(#) The Study of Attention User’s Guide (1996, literature)

(Two Multiple Choice Tests on Memory and Attention I could use for a KP-demo)

I will add below a list of links from my exploding delicious-attention-tag ...

(#) Linda Stone, Continuous Partial Attention vs. Multitasking (2008)
(#) Howard Rheingold's linklist on attention/multitasking
(#) Nerd Attention Deficiency Disorder. ("I am unable to function at my desktop unless I’ve got, at least, five things going on at the same time." - good blog post)
(#) John Hagel on Goldhaber
(#) Phil Jones summarizing the Attention Economy macro-meme
(# and #) Linda Stone and Stowe Boyd on Continous Partial Attention
(#) Arnaud Leene on the explicit and implicit TagSphere as the fundament of the MicroWeb
(#) Ross Mayfield, Attention Saturation (he als did blog about Linda Stone)
(#) Goldhaber's seminal article, see also Georg Franck and (NN)
(#)Fred Wilson, The Looming Attention Crisis - link bundel, Umair Haque et al., about feeds ...