Web 2.0 Design Trends – Do they exist?
Looking at “Web 2.0” leaders such as “upcoming.org”, “flickr.com”, “del.icio.us”, “digg.com”, and “corkd.com” – you don’t see exact visual replication; really there are only slight similarities (which is probably going to be true with most social-networking type sites). So, if all of these sites are undoubtedly considered “Web 2.0” sites and none of their design attributes resemble one another – can “web 2.0” be a design trend?
Of course! In the same way that their mark-up, JavaScript, and algorithms are different — everything behind these sites is based off of the same concepts and technologies. “Web 2.0″ design is really about responsibility - it is about using the technologies we have to produce the best outcome — not the same outcome.
“Web 2.0” is about thinking beyond traditional limitations. Don’t make your links blue because it is the system default. Don’t give your boxes straight corners because that is the default CSS style. Don’t force your link underlines to be the same color as your links simply because it is the default.
Blogger, whether you like it or not, was a driving force for pushing this trend being labeled as “web 2.0″ design. While the design attributes were along far before blogger and David Bowman; the mass-adoption and recognition weren’t. The use of subtle gradients in your backgrounds, the idea of an outer-glow (drop-shadow) behind your content background, borders that went beyond what the system default allowed. All of this while being more SEO friendly, more accessible and with cleaner mark-up.
CSS and Web Standards are “web 2.0″ design. “Web 2.0” is really just a milestone in our web progress. At some point in time we put down a marker and said; from this point forward we only move forward! “Web 2.0” is clearly behind us — everything new such as “microformats” is beyond “web 2.0”. It didn’t exist when that marker was put down, so it’s for the next generation (web 2.1 perhaps?).
Many are moving forward beyond “web 2.0” but most are just now catching up — rapidly though! Don’t knock it; embrace it and be glad more people are talking about “web 2.0″ than being stuck in a 1996 table-based , image-slicing mind-set!
- August 2nd, 2006
- 5comments
- I am a proud member of the 9rules network
I think like anything it is a definition for a moment in time – an association for the masses. Take terms like “Cold War”, “Renaissance” or “Dark Ages”. With all of these terms we can identify style, time, technology and culture. “Web 2.0” is the same thing – it is a defining moment in time that people can associate with a specific style, time, technology and culture.
“Web 2.0” doesn’t equate to gradients and rounded corners, but it does refer to a moment in web design when it was popular to utilize technologies like CSS or JavaScript to display a box with stylish backgrounds and rounded corners that couldn’t traditionally be done using the default background-color and border properties. The catch is that this style was done while adhering to the standards and best-practices of the time.
I think “Web 2.0″ has two aspects - functionality and design. There are obvious design trends that people think of when they hear “web 2.0″ - simplistic page, large text, rounded edges, huge and unnecessary labels, reflections, etc.
The buzzword “web 2.0″ is little more than the current trend. Google made simple popular, and a lot of sites are jumping on board. And it’s great because we have web usability and sites that look pretty good… no more animated GIFs or purple blinking text circa 1996.
I maintain that “web 2.0″ is a business term more than anything else. Try to convince a business owner to upgrade to CSS and W3C standards because it’s “good” won’t get you anywhere. But bandy around “web 2.0″ and you’ll tap into their business sense by scaring them into thinking that they’re being left behind… by a whole version number.
can “web 2.0” be a design trend? — Well, I think “Web 2.0″ is a hype. Some of the design trends that people think are “Web 2.0″ have been around for a while. As far as technology goes, yes, there has been some advancement in how websites are programmed but it is not earth shattering.
I had a similar question made to my fellow internet users - Versioning the web to “web 3.0″ - is it too hasty? Are we done with “web 2.0″? Since I cannot put a link here, search for it at digg.com and digg it if you like it. Or you can search for it at my blog at developershelf.blogspot.com.
Web 3.0 is definitely too hasty. People are saying that is what they are focused on, but that isn’t truly “Web 3.0”. Like all versioning – it should take a significant lead forward in order to really reach that next step.