Thread: Web 2.0 'distracts good design'

Does Web 2.0 really distracts usability and good design?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm

I think Web 2.0 enhances the web experience and provides many new design avenues for designers. Certainly there will be some designs and useability issues not properly addressed by the designer.

I think first and foremost it depends on how you design web 2.0. Unfortunately it's a catch phrase that many people think it simple means more cartoonish looking images, larger fonts, and gradients. However, the overall concept behind web 2.0 is very interesting and it's very interesting how that relates to real estate websites.

One of the biggest elements to web 2.0 has to do with differences in site interaction. Rather than being a glorified business card, websites must now interact and develop relationships with site visitors. Blogs, automatic property matcher emails, interactive Google maps and the such are all benefits to a real estate website in my opinion.

Web 2.0 is not much more than a buzz word. There will be good and bad design with Web 2.0 just as there has been since day one of the internet.

Like Johnyfar implied - it's just a tool. A hammer isn't good or bad, it just depends on the job. It's great for pounding in nails, but not so much when it comes to cleaning windows

In the biggest world template site`s oppinion web 2 is just way of design
- Simplicity and

I belive that a well laid out site that is interactive will generate more intrest and more leads.

But on the other hand a site with great content and low interaction could do the same thing.

The general feeling for "web 2.0" seems to be more design patterns than general functionality. Every 2.0 site seems to be a cookie-cutter of every similar site out there. The gradients, the large fonts, and so on make it like "2.0" even if it doesn't have any real functionality.

The biggest part of web 2.0 is the interaction between the users and the site. This is probably a good idea if you are selling video games but for the majority of home purchasers, the idea of interacting with the computer goes no further than the IDX search.

Active Rain is a good example of a web 2 site and there is less than 1% participation amongst the members.

Speaking of hammers and nails, I think jlknauff hit this nail on it's head.

I think some of the comments make in this article are right, lots of sites do forget the basics of the web - I see that nearly every time I go to the website review on this forum!

The web is moving forward so it is hugely important to have new dynamic sites, tools are important to users however - the article says:

"Research suggests that users of a site split into three groups. One that regularly contributes (about 1%); a second that occasionally contributes (about 9%); and a majority who almost never contribute (90%)."

I agree completely with this statement, a community / forum or whatever you like - is only as good as it's members / users!