I was reading Tina’s blog about technology when I came upon the word Web 2.0. I already read Bernie mention it from the interview of Matt for LS, but I haven’t really researched it yet.

On google I clicked on the first link, and so far, the rest of what I have been reading is exciting but troubling me as well. I’m not sure I fully understand how their definition of web 2.0 goes, but I was thinking about the concept of how they described web 2.0 participants as business men and co designers, each contributing growth to the service–finally detaching websites from being merely information pages but an interactive database which grows as more users provide information. It is now not a one way system, but a very dynamic, community based system.

It can be such an exciting concept. After all, with sites upgrading to compete with the web 2.0 functionality, it can go boundless. And it won’t affect not just the web, but maybe even its nearest adversary, graphics. Media would now not be just how the artist would perceive it, but as how the users would interact with it as well.

It’s just scary for some who are left with the security of being conventional. What would then happen to “simple is elegant”? Chances are ideas would always border on maximalism. Would the net be then too much to handle that web 2.0 might cause information overload?

This entry was posted on Monday, February 5th, 2007 at 2:32 pm and is filed under Daily Mundane Life, Pseudo-Intellectual. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.