[Sigia-l] Web 2.0 99% bad

[Andrew Boyd]

On 5/17/07, Ziya Oz <listera at earthlink.net> wrote:

> That they do. But whether it was crazy table-based extravaganzas in Web 1.0
> days (the example I gave) or 'cramming in as many social features as they
> can' nowadays (as you say), the problem is NOT Web 2.0 per se. It's just bad
> design. There's nothing wrong with social features, it's the 'cramming'
> that's a symptom of bad design. Complaining of the latter is an invitation
> to the Hall of the Obvious or, I suppose, an Alertbox. I guarantee there'll
> be obvious examples of bad design during Web 3.0 and 4.0. :-)

Anyone notice the circular argument here? Ziya, myself, and others on
one side saying "Jakob got it a bit wrong, Web 2.0 is not about bad
design, bad designers are about bad design" and some other people
saying "Web 2.0 is bad because there are bad designs"? :)

I think that the Top 40 metaphor applies - if you listen to a Top 40
radio station, you may not like too many of the songs, especially if
you are older than the target demographic. When you listen to a
middle-of-the-road station you will hear a mixture of Top 40 and older
hits that have survived the quantity-over-quality stage, and probably
find the offering more palatable. (In reality, of course, YMMV, I know
for myself I would generally rather enjoy the silence than listen to
commercial radio of any sort). "Web 2.0" is throwing more bad sites at
the moment because that is what is hip - and like my learned
colleague, I'd like to guarantee that if there is a Web 3.0, 4.0. or
27,000.0, there will be some woeful design.

Cheers, Andrew

---
Andrew Boyd
http://facibus.com/facibusreviews