Web 2.0 is NOT Design

If you are a web developer, a web designer, or you work in a company involved with producing material for the web; you will have no doubt heard the phrase, 'Web 2.0'. The hype has been out of control for many months now between individuals within the trade. The problem however, is that it's now our clients who are using the phrase. They want web 2.0, whatever that is? They are doing so because many people in our trade have been using the term in the wrong way. Let me get this straight, web 2.0 is not meant to be a look or style of design, which is what many of clients refer to when they ask for web 2.0.

'Web 2.0 refers to a perceived second generation of web-based communities and hosts services which aim to facilitate collaboration and sharing between users. Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but to the change in the ways software developers and end-users use the internet.' Wikipedia - A Web 2.0 Application. This definition was cited from Wikipedia.org, which itself is a 'web 2.0' application. In this definition is design mentioned at all? No, it isn't. The reason web 2.0 has become a term for describing a look or way of design, is the flood of certain design trends across a lot of websites designed around the highest point of the web 2.0 hype. High contrast colours, gloss, gradients, reflected logo's etc etc are all common web 2.0 clichés.

Can we now accept web 2.0 as describing both design and development of web usage? Maybe. Originally web 2.0 was not set out to describe design but because so many people refer to web 2.0 in a design sense, and a lot of design clichés can be traced to the web 2.0 hype era, I think the meaning of the phrase web 2.0 can be development of web usage and design clichés. Of course whether you should use design clichés in the first place is another discussion.

The fact of the matter is the definition of a word can be different (in real life cases) depending on the context in which the word is used. For example, I could say, 'That car is sweet'. Whereby you could obviously fathom I don't mean that the car tastes sweet! The same can be applied to web 2.0 as a definition; many like myself will argue the use of its correct definition. However, people will still use the term with reference to design regardless, and those people are wrong!