Web 2.0 - The Killer of Design

design

This may seem a strange statement coming from someone who has designed a few sites that may be deemed as Web2.0 but there’s a big confusion as to what exactly Web2.0 means

So what does it really mean? Everyone is talking about it but it has different connotations for each person. What originally started out as a label for a set of technologies, later expanded to include a specific graphical look and even a general philosophy on interaction methods. As far as technology goes, web founder Tim Berners-Lee said it best:

“this ‘Web 2.0,’ it means using the standards which have been produced by all these people working on Web 1.0.”

So nothing new here, except, maybe, that the continuous evolution of browsers may have finally enabled the use of those technologies as it was meant from the beginning. In any case, the tools were finally developed and they suddenly provided the regular user with a lot more power than before; and with all this new found power, be it in the form of blogs, social networking solutions, wikis or content publishing and sharing systems, came a new breed of internet thinking, which some may refer to as the Web2.0 philosophy. It’s all about empowering the user as an active contributor of information in ways that are so straightforward that anyone can do it. Whereas a few years ago, you had to have at least some basic knowledge about HTML to put together and publish a few texts and images, now it’s as simple as a few clicks.

We now have myriads of users actively publishing content on the internet; but when it’s so easy to do it and all the barriers have been removed, what will the user do with this absolute freedom, especially considering his general lack of whatever publishing skills were necessary before? Too much freedom can be dangerous and the user will eventually abuse it. Just take a look at MySpace or other similar sites to see what I’m talking about. The designer’s nightmare is upon us – users are given the power to choose layout, colors, fonts, and all the flashy gimmicks they want.

All this freedom is not a bad thing in itself. What’s bad is that its results are mimicked in an attempt to gain from all this Web2.0 hype:

“We want our site to look more like a ‘do-it-yourself’ type so that people will know it’s new and cool and Web2.0”

Trends have always been set by leaders and who are the leaders of this movement? Sites like MySpace, YouTube or Facebook, who have generated an enormous amount of hype but, in the end, have done so through their innovative concepts and certainly not through their design, which is sub par at best.

This recent empowerment also led to a false sense of knowledge for a lot of people who otherwise don’t have anything in common with the intricacies of high quality design. Just because you’ve been browsing the web since the 14.4K modem, that doesn’t make you a designer; just because you know every programming language out there, from PHP to Ruby, that doesn’t make you a designer; just because you’re running 5 blogs and a very successful YouTube account, that doesn’t make you a designer; just because you know by heart every effect and filter available in Photoshop, that still doesn’t make you a designer.

I’m going to stress this one more time: Web2.0 is not about design, it’s about the quality of the interaction methods and the principles behind those have seen little change since the beginning of the web, whereas design trends come and go all the time. Quality interactive design is still what it’s all about, maybe even more today than before.

Apr19 07Adam Pattersonsays:

I totally agree with the whole web 2.0 being blown out of context. The internet was never designed to be graphical. So its kinda silly to think that 2.0 would involve graphics.

I do think that to be a good design involves an understanding of current technologies and limits.

Css is such huge part of any design now that understanding standards is essential to a successful site.

I guess there are 2 main front end designers, content and graphical.

Apr24 07Alex Ciobicasays:

I agree! Maybe more people should read Tim O’Reilly’s What Is Web 2.0 - http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

May28 07Artikelverzeichnissays:

Web2.0 is not about design. Its offers some technologies to build interaktive websites.

Jun03 07Ericsays:

I agree Alex’s comment.That’s some good articles from Tim O’Relly.

Aug01 07Mesilasays:

BRAVO! I was getting ready to write the Why Web 2.0 Sucks article and you beat me to it.

Web 2.0 has 3 major problems. 1. It’s stupidly named, since there is also an “Internet 2” which is possibly a net-neutrality threat; 2. All the damned aggregators are a double-edged sword. It may be a plus that propagation of a site is increased, but the cost of this has been community. Blogs used to have small to medium sized circles of daily and weekly readers, who’d regularly comment and get to know one another. Now, it’s random people all the time, from the technorati/magnolia/blogdex/et al. cetera crisscross and there’s no clustering communities at individual blogs and fora, instead, they’ve shifted to the large aggregators/social-network sites. And get too large to manage, or else become lost in the gigantic pool and drown unnoticed.

The third problem: ALL the sites look the same. White background. Three or four GREAT BIG GRAPHICS which are essentially icons. GIGANTIC text, which, while accessible, is UGLY. (CSS templates offering font size choice are nice - I still like my 10 point Verdana.)

Your dark grey design with subtle shade changes is great; matteroffact I got here through that design-snippets page.

If I get around to writing this thing I’ll poink a link here…

Aug02 07Precelsays:

... so ... if as an example of “web 2.0” is always MySpace and other Flickrs etc. that mean for me one thing: web 2.0 is nothing about technology and so on - its about last ten years people were spending their free time on internet and now they are a-social units and they are looking for friends in web.

Sep01 07Artikelverzeichnissays:

Thanks for very interesting article. btw. I really enjoyed reading all of your posts. It’s interesting to read ideas, and observations from someone else’s point of view… makes you think more. So please keep up the great work. Greetings.

Sep20 07anonymous readersays:

Nice article, but many of your thoughts on the subject come off a little naive. And your tone is very smug! You ask good questions, but you are alienating your audience with your position of superior dismissal. Web 2.0 is bigger than you are, whether you like it or not.

There also seems to be a general lack of understanding throughout the article and in the comments as to what “design” actually is, and involves.

For example:

@Adam: “The internet was never designed to be graphical.”

Er, what? Absurd. That’s like saying cars were never designed to have air conditioning or stereos. All technology evolves - what does the past version of it have to do with the future of it?

Likewise:

@ the author:

“This recent empowerment also led to a false sense of knowledge for a lot of people who otherwise don’t have anything in common with the intricacies of high quality design.”

It’s not “false knowledge”, it’s simply an increasing complexity that doesn’t require a user to understand the nuts and bolts of the technology before being able to implement a functional change to it.

To continue the car analogy above, it’s the same thing as modding your Honda Civic to look better and perform better, without needing an engineering degree in combustion engines.

What are you really trying to say here? Are you really just jealous that Joe Nobody can set up a Wordpress blog just as easily as you did for your site?

@ the author:

“I’m going to stress this one more time: Web2.0 is not about design, it’s about the quality of the interaction methods and the principles behind those have seen little change since the beginning of the web, whereas design trends come and go all the time.”

a) you defined what design is by what you said it’s “not”.
b) “visual trends” “design”
c) why are you so threatened by Web 2.0?

Sep20 07badboysays:

Dear anonymous reader, to continue your car analogy, if you wanted to make your Honda Civic fly to the moon, would you let Joe Nobody make the necessary mods to it, or would you, in fact, hire some of the best engineers out there?

All I’m trying to say is that I, personally, am tired of seeing Civics all over the place (some of them with nuts and bolts hanging out due to improper mods) and would like to point out the value of a Porsche or Lexus.

Nov13 07harrysays:

Nice article. Web 2.0 is not about design as so many designers who can create reflections on logos and gradients, and rounded corners seem to think. And it’s not about technology per se. But it is about many new ways of using the web and allowing user participation, community, sharing, and even some of the new technologies (and open source ideas): Such as YouTube, Flickr, MySpace, Wikipedia, blogging, tagging (“folksonomy”), RSS syndication, blogging, web services & mash-ups, BitTorrent, Napster, etc.

Jan04 08web2.0says:

Totally agree will anonymous and Artikelverzeichnis.
Web 2.0 is not about design. It’s mainly AJAX which makes website interactive with users.
You are seeing all the same layouts becuz of most of the ppl design the page either use the same plugins or they just like ‘white’ color.