Finding Web 2.0

Web 2.0 has been poked and prodded, dissected and criticized. It took Tim O'Reilly 8900 words to attempt to describe it. However, in my humble blog, I am going to focus on two key elements of Web 2.0 – Community and Information Organization. Both categories contain sub elements that describe most of the elements of Web 2.0.

The most commonly known function of Web 2.0 in the community theme is social networking. MySpace and Facebook are the most popular sites, indeed the stated function of each site is for users to meet friends and make connections, based on schools, jobs, and other common interests. Blogs also contribute to this social networking function. Users communicate through their blogs, they make note of blogs they enjoy reading. Sometimes relationships are formed between bloggers through a culture of commenting and responding to posts.

Community doesn’t just mean social networking and blogging. Users are also collaborators. In Web 2.0 this takes a number of forms. We have those who rewrite open-source code and create things like mashups. We have tagging of links and reviews in places like del.icio.us and amazon.com that make it easier for other people to find information. Users now have a stake in the way information is organized, in the way companies produce their products. Consumers become producers.

So Web 2.0 is social and collaborative. Users affect the way businesses provide services to the masses. In fact, corporations must provide this functionality, they must allow users the ability to change and adapt, to make the service function on their own terms. If they don’t, users will simply find another place to do business. So how does this impact the new way information is organized and provided in the Web 2.0 world?

With the advent of blogs and RSS feeds, information became more dynamic. Sites are continually being updated. Instead of having to check back on their favorite sites again and again, users merely have to subscribe to an RSS feed. In one easy location, a user can quickly see what has been updated. Also, they don't need to deal with information they are not interested in. They only subscribe to the content they want to read.

Content in the Web 2.0 era is made to be shared. For example, Flickr enables users to give their photos creative commons licenses, so that they may be shared across websites. As O'Reilly says in the above article, places like amazon.com or google maps may license the same data that other static sites use, but they alter and add to the information, changing it and making it more useful to their consumers.

Finally, the use of tags, labels or other folksonomies are changing the way content is organized. Instead of static subject terms determined by a group of librarians at the Library of Congress information is being marked up by the users themselves. Instead of something esoteric like: "Dogs--Behavior--New Jersey--Montclair--Anecdotes" someone could tag a photo or link "dogs" "cute" "training" or with any thing to make it easier for the people who actually deal with the data to find. In sites like del.icio.us where users tag links and share them, a link can have an extensive and complex string of tags. Users can see what tags fellow users have assigned a link and choose whether or not to use that terminology. This is a powerful change in information organization. In fact some libraries are now using tags in their own library catalogs, as you can see in this example from the East Brunswick Public Library.

The one service that really epitomizes these features of Web 2.0 is something called Library Thing. When I first joined Library Thing a few years ago, it was billed as a way to catalog one's personal book collection. It pulled from amazon.com as well as the Library of Congress to obtain records for each book. Since that time, Library Thing has evolved to partake in some of the best features of Web 2.0.

First, Library Thing is social. Users tag their books, and can see other titles other users have tagged with the same term. This is a good way to find books on the same genre or theme. Or, users can friend others with similar interests, also giving them another way to access new and interesting titles to read. Users post reviews of books, giving them ratings. And of course, there is a message board function for further discussion.

Second, Library Thing gives users advanced functionality, allowing them to use data supplied by amazon or the Library of Congress in interesting ways. It can either be used as a record of books one owns, books someone wants to read, or books recommended for a particular project. Library Thing allows users to subscribe to an RSS feed for a particular user. Once again, users access only the information they want to. They can see the books I add to my profile or just my reviews or just reviews of my books written by other users. I can incorporate my library thing on my blog, which I've done on the left hand side.

In this post on Serendipity35's blog, he talks about ways the web will change. Library Thing is certainly interactive and collaborative. It makes connections between users within its framework and also allows users to connect in other frameworks, ie by posting a widget on their blogs. There is also the chance for misuse. Who owns the book review I post on my account? Do I or does Library Thing? Library Thing can post links to my review as an example of their services and there's nothing I can do to stop it. Others can take my words and use them on their blogs or webpages, perhaps even the author of said book will snatch my words for a blurb. Who owns my work? This is a risk and something all users need to be aware of in the new web.

However, since collaboration and sharing are hallmarks of Web 2.0, perhaps the idea of copyright and ownership of words and ideas will change. Although the more users seek to distribute and share content, the more organizations like the RIAA will attempt to hold on to what they see as their intellectual property - their economic future. They will eventually need to change in order to keep up with the changes brought about by Web 2.0. There is still money to be made. Library Thing for example, offers users a paid account option, as well as the free service. Blogs with Library Thing widgets link directly to amazon.com pages, surely boosting their sales. There are still ways to make money in the Web 2.0 economy, but corporations need to do so within the new framework of free thought and ideas.

Paintings

Gillis van Conninxloo’s watercolor painting “Mountain Landscape with River Valley and the Prophet Hosea” can be used to illuminate many of the aesthetic principles used in evaluating design. Art may be pretty to look at, but it is only in breaking down the image can we discuss the visual effectiveness of a work. For this example we’ll be ignoring the historical context of the painting and solely focusing on the visual components.

The first impression a viewer gets from “Mountain Landscape” is the overarching hills in the background. The mountains are the most important element in the hierarchy of the painting. First the viewer sees nature, the mountains, the river, the trees, and then the viewer becomes aware that the hills are made up of buildings. Bridges and paths are built into the landscape. Then the viewer sees the people in the foreground. Finally, the least important detail is that of the birds in the very center of the sky.

The colors of the background are very muted and pastoral. They consist of rich greens and grays. The people on the other hand, are clothed in bright blues and reds. This sets them apart and contrasts them from the background. This focuses the attention as humanity as other, as apart from nature.

Coninxloo uses scale efficiently in this work. In order to create such a landscape, and to create the illusion of distance in a 2D work, it is necessary to play with scale. The houses over the river in the center are about the same size as the people in the foreground. This gives the illusion of the buildings as being far away in the distance. However, the artist also plays with tension here. The people aren’t quite to scale, the mountains are a bit too close together, the river too perfect. It makes for an intriguing visual.

What is especially nice about this painting is the way the artist has set up the flow of the work. The viewer’s eyes are drawn to the mountains first, then slowly begin to focus on the individual details. The viewer realizes there are houses in the mountains, some over water and there is a little boy fishing in the water. The eye is captured from a distance and enticed to look closer.

The artist balances the landscape appropriately. The mountains are placed symmetrically, though the hills on the right are slightly closer and larger. Townspeople on either side of the river are walking towards the water. Trees and greenery are slightly stronger on the right hand side, contrasting with the darker coloring on the left.

This entire image is held together by the river in the center. The river winds its way, like a path, from the very center of the mountains towards the viewer. There are many paths, stairways, and bridges, all man-made, that mimic this motion throughout the painting.

This painting is a lovely piece of artwork. It utilizes many principles that make design aesthetically pleasing. But is the only purpose of art to hang in a museum and look pretty? How else can a designer make use of such an image in a commercial sense?

There are multiple possible uses for such an image. It would make an excellent wraparound cover for a textbook, perhaps on history, psychology or even art. The painting can also be used in advertising for a variety of products. It could be the background of an ad for allergy medication. Perhaps the muted colors and imagery would work well to sell items that emphasize graphics. Those include photo editing software, Macintosh computers or high quality color printers. I can visualize an ad where the painting is being printed from one of these printers and the quality matches the painted copy on the wall. The painting could fit in on a church newsletter or other publication, although the image is not strictly religious despite its title.

Although the artist had a context for his painting, the work can also be discussed on its visual elements alone. By analyzing each element, the viewer can see how these principles result in good design.

Students Today

My husband, the teacher, passed me this video. While not perfect, there is much to think about here. It's a good introduction to the mindset of college students. Since I work at a college, I see some of this firsthand.



This video leaves me questions. How can we utilize new technology to capture student's attention? How can we change education? Are wo hundred student classrooms the best way to teach?