Web 2.0 Blog

With the recent release of the iPhone 3G I felt a post about the likely implications for the future of the web, regarding this device was relevant. Having been briefed about the iPhones capabilities, it seems apparent to me that this is the furthest point in pervasive computing that technology has taken us so far. For those unfamiliar with the term ‘pervasive computing’ or ubiquitous computing’, it is basically the post-desktop model of human-computer interaction whereby the computing system becomes integrated into every day life.

Whereas the traditional desktop HCI model was easier to predict how, when and why the device is being used, with a ubiquitous device like the iPhone, it is much more difficult to predict its use as it can be used for many more activities, interacted with in more ways, and vitally in practically any location. This throws up a host of HCI and usability issues that Apple appear to have controlled in a very smart way.

It seems apparent to me that interacting with the web in a pervasive way such as this will one day become the standard of computing, meaning web designers and webmasters will have to adjust how the web is generally presented. With the Internet wherever you go and in a much more accessible format - it is surely preferred to sitting at a desktop in an office or study and browsing using traditional methods. Why do we even need a web browser? The iPhone operates just fine without one, although admittedly the range of tools available is severely limited at this time. The difference is that Apple hasn’t tried to mimic the traditional web browsing standards, it has rewritten these standards and has just let us get on with it. No longer is an address bar needed when your favourite sites are located in an iPhone folder which need to be simply pressed to be accessed. Larger web 2.0 companies such as eBay and Facebook have released their own plugins for the system for improved and unique access.

Web browsing aside, the iPhone uses a wireless Internet connection for many other services, which are all located and stored on the same unit. GPS and location awareness, instant email access via cloud computing, news, stock prices and even additional features such as the ability to use the system as a remote control for your TV all add up to a device that you can centre your world around, except now the computer integrates into your world.

You look at any blog post including this one, and you’ll see various tags attached around the pages tell you to ‘bookmark this’, ’sphinn that’ or ‘make this post a favourite’ and I’m sitting here thinking who actually uses all these widgets and why? Digg claims to have over 20 million users, which is quite incredible but who are these users?

The idea is that when you bookmark a site or a post, it becomes saved in your profile on the social bookmarking site and most likely shared to other users using the same service. So by making this bookmark, you are also alerting others to the existance of this website’s content. But is it meant for casual Internet users? I think not.

From the people I have asked, who are regular users of social networing sites and are therefore quite in tune with web 2.0 technologies, there is not much understanding of what a social boomark is. Ther’s not much out there that will tell usrs what it social bookmarking is. No adverts, no formal descriptions and certainly no advice as to why anyone should bother with it. And yet there’s millions of users using these services worldwide, how did it all take off?

I do know that social bookmarking is quickly becoming an ideal resource for search engine optimizers. Every time my posts are submitted to social boomarking sites I get more backwards links and Google sees these links as valuable votes, a process which will increase my rankings. If my readers also submit my posts to social bookmarking sites then that helps me even more. It’s therefore easy to see why webmasters use social bookmarking.

However a drawback of this is that these systems are becoming abused by spammers who want nothing more than to fill these sites up with their links. A lot of sites are now using nofollow tags to combat this.

So it’s a good information resource, a way of sharing and promoting websites and it’s definitely a notable method for optimizing RSS based websites, but I’m still not sure who the majority of their users are. It’s also very difficult to find any information about who the users are, I certainly couldn’t find any information on Google regarding the market of this phenomenon. There’s millions of users out there who are using these sites and my guess would be that the majority of users are keen Internet users who embrace web 2.0 technologies and have more than a passing interest in Internet services. This would include:

• Web developers
• Forum and blog posters
• Internet marketers
• Web writers
• Graphic designers
• Web enthusiasts

I simply cannot see how casual users would have the interest, time and patience to learn about how to use social bookmarking. But maybe I am wrong. If you can shed any light on this please give me a reply, or even add this post to a social bookmarking site. Sphinn it, Furl it, StumbleUpon it or and tell people that you’ve Reddit. Just don’t ask them understand it…

I came across Feedreader the other day and was very impressed by the service it offered. It is basically what I expect the immediate future of RSS to offer in terms of Web 2.0/3.0 technologies. Instead of having the feed stored on a website, social bookmarking site or in your web browser, the content gets automatically delivered in an exceptionally user-friendly desktop new aggregator. I was staggered with how easy it was to use and how useful it is to have the web delivered to you in the most direct of circumstances.

Furthermore, the application is free and features two more features:

• Feedreader OEM - A fully customizable feed service including modifications to information collected and teh visual appearance of the software.
• Feedreader Connect - Allowing you to retrieve information articles from remote locations, including mobile phones. This information can even then be published throughout your local Intranet.

This type of simple and efficient information sharing is what will become standardized in future Web 2.0 devices in my opinion. When feeds were first introduced, they were pretty much as static as the website they were subscribing to. New ways of expanding and manipulating these feeds are becoming available and it should result in a much simpler service. Let’s face it, most Internet users wouldn’t be able to tell you what a feed is. By having information come straight to the desktop it detatches itself from association with website publishing and becomes merely a customized news service.

Rich Internet Applications, the future basis for how users will be presented with web applications are slowly but surely killing off the standard, limited and occasionally inaccessible HTML methodologies that have been dominating Internet development over the last 10 years. But what exactly do RIAs mean to Web 2.0?

In-Depth User Interaction
RIAs offer users a much richer and more engaging experience. Basically things that encourage the user to interact with the interface more such as flash games, interactive menus, customization and manipulation. A good example of this is Multimap.com. What once was a simple HTML search returning static image results has turned into a data and functionality rich interface which allows the user to physically drag the map around the interaction area, just as you would if a paper map were underneath the window.

Desktop-Webtop Integration
The process of delivering web applications to user desktops and further narrowing the gap between browsers and desktop interfaces is finally coming to fruition as apps such as Google Desktop. The more the desktop is connected, the more likely it is to stay up-to-date with the latest technologies. Ebay’s desktop application offers users a way of browsing, buying, selling and bidding without even using a browser window. The program starts just like a desktop application and can even run in the background without interfering with the user’s other activities. Could all websites follow a similar suit one day? Why do we even need browsers, when we can search Google from the desktop?

Greater Accessibility
Usability will always stand as the highest priority in rich web applications as without it, you’ve built something that doesn;t work. One aim of these technologies is to make the sites that use them accessible to everyone. Adobe claims their RIA technologies reach 98% of desktops, plus users will no longer need to install them as updating and distributing the application is an instant, automatically handled process  - Wiki. The fact that they are also client-based rather than remote server based also means a higher response time is to be expected.

Check out the Siblu Booking Form, a one-screen interface which totally eliminates any need for the user to ‘refresh’ or ‘go back’. Having to follow links is one of the most prominent issues when developing usable interfaces as it requires users to find ways of navigating through pages unnaturally. Could RIAs completely rewrite the rules of Internet form usability?

In order for RIA’s to develop even further, web developers will need to evolve how they design and build websites to accommodate for this new technology. Programs such as Adobe Air and similar next-gen applications will surely lead the way to a better Web 2.0.

Similarity in accessibility design is concerned with how a user perceives objects in a group that are alike, are related in context. For example, the diagram below would be perceived as alternating columns of circles and squares, rather than rows of alternating squares and circles:

The same laws can be applied to web design. When creating interfaces for websites, the use of similarity can make individual elements on a page more accessible by grouping them based on their sharing of the same features.

For example, the website Blogotion separates its content with similarity. The links across the top sharing a blue container are clearly grouped and are reminiscent of a navigational structure. Down the right hand side, rounded squares full of colour and large text are designed to attract the readers attention before anything else and would be initially perceived as not part of the main content, but other areas of interest. Their design is also not dissimilar to how web ads are displayed.

Speaking of which, the ads on the left hand side also share a similar format, particularly the conventional ’tile+URL+description’ formulae which Google ads have become well known for.

Furthermore, the main content of this website’s homepage is arranged in the middle of the page and uses small icons which are all slightly different to highlight characteristics of each category. This is also an attempt to differentiate the list from the Google Ads, as it would look very similar without.

In a likewise manner, the grouping of similar links in this site’s navigation makes it easy to differentiate links that will take us to more in-depth content, and basic web pages that are not content-driven. The website Sigmapi Systems groups industry sectors into blue boxes with icons to illustrate the industry, while the more standard web pages are linked with white boxes and no icon. This clear division of web navigation makes it easier to distinguish what pages are considered more important to the user.

These are two simple examples of how similarity can be effective in web design but there are many more examples which have varying levels of usefulness. Please leave a comment if you have anything to say on this matter.