live.hackr

die romantische komödie


Terminologie

Ich wünsche mir wirklich, jeder, der in den Schwachsinnskanon gegen das Web 2.0 einstimmt, würde das hier lesen.

Where this whole thing gets interesting is that many of the Web 2.0 buzzwords actually DO—for some people—compress and convey rich information. In other words, while I make a distinction between empty buzzwords and domain-specific terms, sometimes there’s no clear line between the two. One guy’s Web 2.0 empty buzzword is another one’s meaningful addition to the emerging technology lexicon.

And that brings up the other thing I like about Web 2.0—that it has engaged so many people’s minds in actively creating/defining/interpreting the meaning of the ideas, words, and concepts. Web 2.0 is both ambiguous and meaningful… but not for everyone. For many, the words are just useless marketing speak with no there there.

My problem with the Web 2.0 terms is not that they are meaningless. And my problem is not that they are too complex and should be dumbed down. My problem is that they are focused on the technology and the business model, rather than focusing on what those things will mean to the end-user. And when I say “mean to the end-user”, I don’t mean that the end-user cares about the words. The end-user cares about what WE—the developers/implementors of Web 2.0-ish products or services—are creating for them.

When I say that the Web 2.0 words aren’t user-driven, I don’t mean that the users should be driving or even understanding the words. But if a deep concern for users isn’t driving the meaning of these words, we’re in for a flock of crap products and services that implement 2.0 goodness but do nothing to inspire or engage users. Again, my problem with 2.0 words is not about what they mean, or how consice or confusing they are, as much as about what they’re focused on.

meta 12.12.2005 /via @headrush #