Many people have their own definition of what "Web 2.0" means. Tim O’Reilly’s definition of Web 2.0 is as simple as "the network as platform."
As an instructional technologist I personally loathe the term. It seems like its become more than O'Reilly probably originally intended, and has morphed somewhat tragically into a marketing buzzword.
However, the spirit of what "web 2.0" embodies lives on. For me that spirit is built around "making a connection."
Humans are innately social beings -- and we will always find ways to form connections to other humans. The technological advances brought forth by the combination of technologies heretofore referred to as "Web 2.0" were really concocted to spur those connections, albeit virtually.
Since our brains feel the need to categorize and label, it's expected that a term will be applied to a new collation of experiences, such as those embodied by what has been defined as "Web 2.0."
As the evolution of mass communication evolves, so will our categorizing and labeling. Naturally, by the time the category or label enters the zeitgeist it's usually redundant.
As a designer, a communicator, and an educator, the embodiment of the ongoing virtual social revolution boils down to one simple theory: the need to build a connection to my audience. Without the ability to successfully make a connection (be it through emotion or pure logic - or both) I believe the desired outcome of the intervention will be diminished.
Comments