Web 2.0 is a buzzword (or buzzphrase I suppose) that is used often these days; and for good reason as the majority of our internet incorporates at least a variety of web 2.0 elements. As Claire recently pointed out in her article (Re)Discovering Web 2.0 it’s difficult to find any website that lacks anything web 2.0 related. The need for websites to adapt to the modern world wide web and utilize web 2.0 became apparent and thus the buzzphrase was formed. However, this is a phrase not many fully understand. There is a definite distinction between what is Web 2.0 Concept VS Web 2.0 Aesthetic.
Well what is Web 2.0 then? Simply put the concept is to move from static information oriented websites to dynamic communication oriented websites. A great example is twitter which would be entirely empty without considering its web 2.0 elements. Twitter’s interchange of user input leading to communication between users is exactly what web 2.0 is all about. Wikipedia may sound like it would fit the category of a web 1.0 website (static) being that it’s entirely information based with little communication, however Wikipedia is very much web 2.0 as users are able to dynamically alter the information directly on the website itself.
With these examples in mind we can see how web 2.0 surrounds the web in some way or another even if it’s as simple as leaving a comment or updating your status. It’s all about having the web recognize YOU as a user and not just another IP address.
So then, where does the confusion come in?
The confusion comes from websites trying to look fresh and hip by “wearing” a theme that looks flashy and new. What people think are standards in web design become cliché’s. Buzzwords erupt from this unfortunate hole web designers have dug over the past few years. A list of these is provided in elliotjaystock’s presentation fowd-november-2007.
- Vibrant High Contrast Colors
- Special Offer’ badges
- Gloss/Sheen
- Bevelled edges
- Gradients
- Diagonal Lines
- Soft-focus effects (subtle outer glow) and as I’d like to add, drop shadows.
- Reflected Logo
While these are not always a bad thing it’s important in any art field you’re in to understand what is cliché and when to use or avoid them. When overused what ends up happening is your website inevitably looks like everyone else’s.
Somewhere along the line these cliché’s spawned the idea of this look as being Web 2.0. This misconception of what web 2.0 truly is becomes a problem because clients all-to-easily ask for a web 2.0 design and get stuck with the same copy & paste effects everyone else is using. Speaking from a designer’s point of view it’s safe to say that many of these effects are simply to recreate within a few mouse clicks.
I’m not trying to say that simple is bad, however I offer the contrary. Some of the best websites choose not to bevel a content box or reflect their logo. Use these special effects intelligently and sparingly. For example, is it truly necessary to repeat your logo in a reflection directly below the actual logo? And flipped vertical at a lower opacity? If you can’t explain the reasoning behind adding an effect, then most likely it shouldn’t have been added in the first place.
Web 2.0 is a concept not a design aesthetic(elliotjaystocks), however the cliché’s that come with it can sometimes be useful if used sparingly. Knowing the difference between Web 2.0 concept VS aesthetic is a major part of the battle in achieving a good website. Be aware when you ask a designer to create a web 2.0 theme and don’t be afraid to be specific. Learn to recognize cliché’s and request that something more original and relevant to your website’s cause is reflected in the theme itself; that is the designer’s job after all. It’s your job to know what you want and specifically in this case, what you don’t.
