What is Digg?63 Comments
- commandar!, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Meh. Web 2.0 is a meaningless buzzword all the trendy kids are latching onto to make them feel special. Biggest hint that this is the case? There's no real way to define what 'Web 2.0' is.
While there are a lot of really, really cool new sites out there, Web 2.0 is just a totally self-congratulatory bunch of nonsense. Call good design good design; there's no need to create a buzzword out of it. - Dradis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"Font-Size: Oversized"
This guy should take his own advice.. I'm getting a freakin' headache from tiny blog text. - dpk87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8meh, I'm not impressed. Alot of the sites he links to are just plain ugly I.E. http://instantdomainsearch.com. Hardly something anyone would want to try and mimick.
Also, I really think he is pushing it with several things. I mean Footers? Hardly anything new, and used by any intelligent designer where needed. Gradients? Of which he refers to as "shades". Well they have been around since the beginning of time.
Granted I'll give him The rounded edges and "Descriptive HTML (XML style)" but overall I don't see anything special about this article. - heinous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Right on. I don't think any self-respecting designer worth his salt would buy into this labeling convention. Most of the Dos on that list have been Dos as long as HTML has been around, and the same goes for the Donts.
- artnez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Web 2.0 is a buzzword and should be treated as such. Web 2.0 isn't a technology, it's the manifestation of web application PR people and a product of people's laziness in understanding the technology they use (as opposed to clinging to buzzwords that make absolutely no sense). The things that are being done with "Web 2.0" have been going on years in the professional world before the "webmasters" (such a stupid word) got their hands on it.
Even the phrase "Web 2.0" implies complete ignorance for two reasons:
1. There was never a "Web 1.0", thus there cannot be a "Web 2.0"
2. The word "Web" implies a group of servers sharing the same protocol to communicate. It has nothing to do with "AJAX", graphics, etc.
So apparently...
Using your freakin brain is out, being lazy and stupid is in. - subtle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Simon: I like the technology ... I don't need the BS
- phidong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This has been on front page before..
- iBookG4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Almost identical to this post, too...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8BIG FONTS and white background, and you call this 2.0? Excuse me if I don't flip with excitement.
- Seidoger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Great stuff.. But.. Either you have the eye for web-design or you have not. I know there are those web-design trends that change all the time, but then again, for the past few months people have been a little bit too wild..
All those websites (he's linking to) that are all buzzword compliant, yet are all "Coming soon". I've seen too many of those.. We'll see what it does. But to my mind Web 2.0, it's all about creating useful stuff to help the community, or giving the voice to this community (like Digg ;). Anywayzz hehe a bit out of context.
Nice article :) Digg!
Oh and I'd add to be minimalistic to the tips list.. all those Web 2.0 sites have lots of space for few items, they breathe! - supergwiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4He forgot a couple:
- Put "BETA" next to the site logo
-Use a Mac to code site and produce graphics
-have a Tag Clouds functionality, even if it's unnecessary - Agent_M, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Are we STILL learning how to be trendy and next-gen with this Web 2.0 design stuff? Isn't making quality sites with good content enough?
Come onnnnn now. - mfearby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It's all a load of cods-wallop if you ask me. There's nothing inherintly "web 2.0" about pastel colours or rounded corners. Big fonts look dumb, too - take Flock's home page for example. It's the surest way to present yourself as a dumb moron with absolutely no styling abilities whatsoever. Flock is just another "me too" browser, anyway, so why anybody should be gushing over their infantile web site, I don't know....
- subtle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I didn't get any further than the preface. 2.0Culture? F#@k off. As if Web 2.0 wasn't nauseating enough!
- sgarrity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I love seeing silverorange as examples on these articles about web-twenny design. Our current silverorange.com design was launched in March of 2002. Check out the source - it's a table-based design people! We've been too busy designing sites for our clients to update our own. Glad to see it's a shining example of the future of web design though ;-)
- chrishill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2saifatlast: I agree, as an umbrella term its good, I just dont like the wording of it for the reasons others have outlined.
and to all the others proclaiming 'dupe!' nothing came up when I submitted the post, so appologies if it is. - veter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If you think fischer price while you desing a web page...Itll become web2.0 esque. It looks really nice and all, but truly, there isn't much else to it. Color theory strongly implemented and big giant buttons...
- Evic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Web 2.0 has nothing to do with design, it's about content producers maintaining control of their content.
For example:
Edgeio.com - when your ads get listed there, you still own the ad - unlike eBay where they own everything from the images you post to your reputation.
Blogs/Aggregators/Memetrackers - You write an article, you still own it - unlike traditional media where you sell your article to a newspaper and they do with it what they please. - silentvirus, on 10/25/2008, -0/+2dupe - http://digg.com/design/2.0Culture_-_How_to_design_Web_2.0_look-a-like_websites
- SolariPicasso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They should have a DIGG recycle. Some of us can't read every article that hits the front page and don't have time to 'DIGG' around. I liked the article. I am a corporate drone, stuck with an amazingly bad portal design. I have to freshen up the appearance of our portal and this article, if nothing pointed to some fresh (to me) designs and ideas. I am using Plumtree now BEA Aqualogic User Interaction Portal. It really needs some help in the design choices department. MS is blowing them out of the water...Thanks for the effort of your article!
- sosuke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i was just thinking to myself this must be deja-vu cause i swear i had seen this hit front page before
- Syntaxis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So I had a guy over for a job interview the other day. I asked him: "What do you know about AJAX?" and he replied: "It's just javascript". I nodded and proceeded: "What do you know about web 2.0?" and he replied: "Web 1.0 beta was released already?" and I replied: "Not quite yet, web 2.0 is new fresh and cool", he replied: "Well from what I understand it's just a term used by those who are ignorant or managers, or both."
So he now has a job. - TheWino, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2when did web 1.0 happen!!!
- subtle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ... love it!
- davdav, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12This is crap
Go ahead, digg my comment down. It doesn't change the fact.
Whatever happened to the elegance of csszengarden.com or cssvault.com? - mittermayr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I would actually, but Wordpress doesn't let me. I am moving to my own hosting anyway soon.
But you can read the article in a beautified 2.0Culture version on:
http://www.vipedio.com/roman/blog/20culture_full.html - Evic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes I agree with you on that point as well. My comment was more accurately directed to the other commenters on this post, rather than the original author.
- Brennan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Are you serious? Reading that text gives you a headache?
- enzomedici, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
Web 2.0 is meaningless nonsense and it along with these retarded design rules will go the way of spinning globes and under constructions gifs. Simple pages? Big ass fonts? That's been around since the 80's, it's called AOL. - Shucker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Tool... it's your own lame blog. Has nothing to do with the post.
- Photoblog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1here are some cool open source web 2.0 templates http://www.studio7designs.com
- Agent_M, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can't speak for everyone here, but there's nothing wrong with your article. They're useful points and whatever, but this is digg and we've seen many articles/tutorials on this same topic. It gets old after the umpteenth posting. They just keep getting dugg to the front page because of "that" buzzword.
- sosuke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1lucky bastard with a job, i have seen many many resumes have "ajax" as a programming language for qualifications
meh, jealous, glad to see someone can see through the ***** - theprodigy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This story is more duplicative than this comment.
- FunkyG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Interesting article but I think that it misses the potential of web2.0. Yes a lot of the design is....how can I put it...basic, but that is usually because that the people doing web 2.0 are developers not designers. In time the tools will be available for designers to produce web2.0 apps easily, and at that stay the design will switch to something like the style of the day.
For me web2.0 is about the application and the user experience. Once the users have got used to an app like web page, they will demand better and more engaging design.
I have to say too that not all web2.0 apps are as basic as the examples. Try www.goowy.com, they have put a lot of emphasis on their design, and will I am sure reap the benefits. - quade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0God, was this guy joking? Like the WEb 2.0 generator that was on digg homepage a few weeks ago? This Web 2.0 thing is getting as bad as all the "Look, no tables! I'm only CSS! Tables are teh sux0rs!" zealots from a couple of years ago.
- chrishill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2'Web 2.0 has nothing to do with design, it's about content producers maintaining control of their content.'
I think that highlights a problem, who exactly defines web 2.0? maybe thats what it means to you, but I think to the majority of people it means something else prodominantly. I'm not saying you're wrong, I think maintaining ownership of content is part of the philosophy of web 2.0, but its not what its ALL about. It has a great deal to do with design, to me it mainly means creating a smoother, easier and much more simplistic form of website using a combination of techniques including coding, design, structure and theologys. Its about making it as easy as possible for the user to do what they want to, without going back to grass-roots bland design and coding. - cadavreexquis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What's good content when you can have giant bewildering header graphics instead?
- weiran, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Nice, I was looking for something like this. Digg!
- davdav, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I have resolved to never digg an article that uses the term "web 2.0"
bzzzzz - davdav, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm on it!
- lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I remember seeing this on digg several weeks ago, but it was posted somewhere else. Dupe?
- jayboogie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is a dupe
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.design-sites.net/creation-sites/creation-sites/
New technologi for creation sites. - superstewy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Good site to look at if you're creating a website. Great tips. Digg,
- saifatlast, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I think the people who bash web 2.0 as a term don't really get it. It's more than just a buzz word, it's a rather enveloping term that encompasses several things, including design like the article talks about, snappy or AJAXified interfaces, often some kind of social element, etc. Web 2.0 is nothing more than a convenient umbrella term. As a web designer, and user, the term Web 2.0 has real meaning to me, to where if someone said they were making a Web 2.0 type sitebusiness, I would know what they were talking about.
Also, as far as this design, I don't think it's a bad trend by any means. XHTML and CSS make your pages much cleaner and more accessibly, and from a developer standpoint, the type of code they use is much much more maintable and easy to read than old-style tables and whatnot. I personally find a lot of the stuff they do as far as color schemes, larger text, etc. refreshing and quite attractive a lot of the time.
Say what you will about the choice of wording, Web 2.0 has meaning to those who know what they're talking about, and the effect of it is more positive than negative, if you ask me. - stuartbryant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, 40 day old dupe... does no one understand that digg has a search function?
- tablatronix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1shades ?
does he mean gradients ?
web 2.0 to this guy means look at sites and copy them to be trendy.
And i dont think the design "style" hes referencing has anything to do with web 2.0. I have a feeling that the prevelence of lcd monitors has caused it to be so popular. - cadavreexquis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0But but but but Jeff Zeldman said it's now "Web 3.0"!
- aychamo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1That one web 2.0 site he links to at http://www.aychamo.com is pretty neat!
-
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is