Critical Analysis of Web 2.0 Applications - Report Example

Critical Analysis of Web 2.0 Applications I. Introduction: In 2001, after the dot-com bust, everyone had written off the Web. We saw Web 2.0 not as a new version of the Web, but rather, as the realization of the Web’s potential, its second coming, so to speak (Shuen, 2008). From papers and magazines, to radio and television and then World Wide Web (Berners-Lee & Fishetti, 1999) communication between the creator or host with its audience or reader have been one way. With Web 2.0 audience or reader interaction and involvement have gone to the second level. The World Wide Web has changed the way that people do business, communicate and share information with each other. Since its inception in the early 1990s, the World Wide Web has evolved from a collection of Web sites containing page of static or infrequently changing, text, images, and hyperlinks (Shelly & Frydenberg, 2010) to a collection of interactive tools. These tools enable the reader to participate and immediately react to posts emanating from a particular article. An appealing feature of the development of Web 2.0 application is that many of its services are based on OpenSource format in which anyone with programming skills can use, modify, or remix a program with a completely separate, independent one. This OpenSource concept makes the program free or inexpensive, and by using Web 2.0 tools, users no longer need to be concerned about expensive licensing agreements. Web users who do not have programming skills can use their online creations, plus take advantage of their shared expertise (Bell, 2009). However Web 2.0 also has its pitfalls that would include security sonsideration due to increased interaction and open line of communication between the web host and the customer. Another concern that needs to be addressed is the increased security infrastructure cost to ensure that confidentiality, integrity and availability is attained. Security was simpler when the security perimeter was a well defined, defensible zone. But Web 2.0 mobility, and handheld devices have changed that (Gillis, 2010). II. What is Web 2.0 Some people think of Web 2.0 as the assimilation of human participation into web architecture, while some define it as a natural progression of the internet. Others claim that Web 2.0 is actually what the first generation of the internet strived to be. There are many differeny defintions and examples. Controversy aside, it’s hard not to recognize that the internet has evolved dramatically, creating a genuine sense of excitement about what’s happening in cyberspace (Governor, Hinchcliffe, & Nickull, 2009). An increasing number of people contributing to the internet, either deliberately or incidentally has created a huge set of data that gives us millions of potential insights into user experience, marketing, personal taste, and human behaviour in general (Segaran, 2007). III. Examples of Web 2.0 applications Facebook.com – a social networking website is one of the best examples of Web 2.0 application. Twitter – is another social networking website is also a clear example of Web 2.0 applications Most of the social networking websites are Web 2.0 applications. IV. Web 2.0 Social Networking Strategy Considerations in its Implementation Web 2.0 is a landscape where users control their online experience and influence the experiences of others; where success comes from harnessing the power of social networks, computing netwoeks, media and opinion networks, and advertising networks. In Web 2.0 a company’s profile within this interlinked networks increasingly determines how its brand is perceived and even where a company’s website rank in the search engine (Funk, 2008). With Web 2.0 we have access to multiple data sources (quantitative, qualitative, and competitive). We have access to an abundance of free tools that we can use to ensure our web decisions, from tactical to the strategic are informed by data. Those decisions may range from what content should go on which page, to how to purchase the right set of keywords for our search marketing campaigns, to how to find the audience with the perfect demographic and psychographic profile for our business, to how to delight vistors when they get to our website (Kaushik, 2010). In today’s social networks, we can easily publish a picture, discuss the books we have read, the films we did not like, have a conversation, and blog about our day-to-day activities as a public diary. We can find others who have similar interests, skills, and responsibilities (Bernal, 2009). V. Conclusion Web 2.0 gives a new frame of reference to the internet, a new tone if you will, beyond just technologies – one of new business models, economic models, and social models defined by usage and participation and supported by appropriate technologies (Sankar & Bouchard, 2009). Like many important concepts, Web 2.0 doesn’t have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core. You can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together (Reilly, 2005). Visualize Web 1.0 as a collection of people with labels on their neck that indicate their particulars. For portals it will be a building with a lot of bill boards. With Web 1.0 you have static websites that shows content for reading only. With Web 2.0 you visualise a street with plenty of people however, this time instead of a collection of data, information and facts. The pages are living and communicating with you as you peruse the web. You can chat with the people directly, or leave a message of encouragement. The increasing demand for bandwidth has always been an issue with applications that maintain an open connection between the visitor of the website and the website itself. The issue of security needs to be considered as well. Any open connection is an open gate that needs to be closed when the website has been shown. Aside from security and bandwidth requirements. The website has to reside in an infrastructure that is expensive because of the added layer of security and processing speed. Applications that has been mostly developed using a compiler for a web 1.0 would require debugging to accommodate the changes. Creation of cookies to maintain communication without the need to redial and re-establish a session was considered. Bibliography Bell, A. (2009). Exploring Web 2.0: Second Generation Interactive Tools - Blogs, Pdocasts, Wikies, Networking, Virtual Worlds, and More. Georgetown TX: Katy Crossing Press. Bernal, J. (2009). Web 2.0 and Social Networking for the Enterprise: Guidelines and Examples for Implementation and Management within your Organization. Boston: IBM Press. Berners-Lee, T., & Fishetti, M. (1999). Weaving the Web. HarperSanFrancisco , Chapter 12. Funk, T. (2008). Web 2.0 and Beyond: Understanding the New Online Business Models, Trends, and Technologies. Westport CT: Praeger Publishers. Gillis, T. (2010). Securing the Borderless Network: Security for the Web 2.0 World. Indianapolis: Cisco Press. Governor, J., Hinchcliffe, D., & Nickull, D. (2009). Web 2.0 Architectures: What Entrepreneurs and Information Architects Need to Know. Savastopol CA: OReilly Media. Kaushik, A. (2010). Web Analytics 2.0 The Art of Online Accountability & Science of Customer Centricity. Indiana: Wiley Publishing, Inc. Reilly, T. (2005, September 30). What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Gneration of Software. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from Oreilly.com: http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1 Sankar, K., & Bouchard, S. (2009). Enterprise Web 2.0 Fundamentals. Indianapolis: Cisco Press. Segaran, T. (2007). Programming Collective Intelligence: Building Smart Web 2.0 Applications. Sebastopoll, CA: OReilly Media Inc. Shelly, G. B., & Frydenberg, M. (2010). Web 2.0 Concepts and Applications. Boston: Course Technology. Shuen, A. (2008). Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide: Business Thinking and Strategies Behind Successful Web 2.0 Implementation. Sebastapol, CA: OReily Media. Read More