[Sigia-l] Web 2.0 99% bad

[Ziya Oz]

Eric Reiss:

> there is nothing in the Nielsen article that even comes close to your
> "generalisation of Jakob's generalisations."

"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%).

By definition, said Mr Nielsen, ONLY A SMALL NUMBER OF USERS ARE LIKELY TO
MAKE SIGNIFICANT USE OF ALL THE TOOLS A SITE PROVIDES."

"Most people just want to get in, get it and get out," said Mr Nielsen. "For
them the web is not a goal in itself. It is a tool."



I haven't seen any credible research that proves the above. But assuming for
a millisecond that it could be true, what does it say?

I mean, people may not regard phones as "a goal in itself" either. Does that
mean we should downplay its significance in human communications? Peoples'
innate desire to connect, listen, talk, observe, etc?
 
> The "99% bad" comment started with Ziya, not with Jakob.

Yep. The '99% bad' describes the degree of blindness (by the promoters of
dogma) to the social aspects of software that Web 2.0 is just beginning to
unearth.

----
Ziya

In design, interaction is the last resort.