Web 2.0 look - dull or not?

[Hannah]

Maybe it's just me and I'm missing something here, but I feel that when I see something that claims to be a Web 2.0 style, they're all pretty bland.

It seems that the days of colorful websites are turning to dim memories. Not that I particularly liked anything garish but everything appears to be that bit too plain now.

Doesn't that make life so much harder for all you creative designers out there?

Designer : "What colors would you like?"

Client: "Errr... Web 2.0 colors. White, gray and black. Oh and some dark gray. " :help:

This site is a good example of how nice a balance you can attain without resorting to the other extreme of eyeball searing pages like you see on MySpace.

Anyone think the overall trend in Web 2.0 style is too far to the opposite end of the spectrum? Could be of course I just haven't seen that many examples but I'd like to see some kind of middle ground.

But then maybe it wouldn't be Web 2.0... It's all a matter of personal taste, I guess.

 

[Artashes]

That's one strange perspective that you have of Web 2.0.

I think quite the opposite. The 2.0 design style is pretty colorful, but its the presence of sites that come off as raw. Part of the reason for that is because web 2.0 is made to be very user-friendly where Web as we know it is designed to be application-driven rather than graphically-driven. Internet is going toward the time where it will be served almost as an OS to computing... Not sure how many people actually share that theory though.

Best,

 

[Marks]

The Web 2.0 look is very new and still hasn't got a "established criteria"

White; Grey; Black and Gradients is a common example however things can certainly be taken further.

I think Zone.net has a fantastic "Web 2.0" style design.

 

[purple]

I've actually never seen a black/white/grey web 2.0 site, so maybe I just live in a box or design in an odd manner. Most of theones I've seen or worked on used rather bright saturated fun colors, kind of reminiscent of Apple's fruit colors. When I learned how to design web 2.0 designs my criteria were:
* Simple layout
* Centered orientation
* Design the content, not the page
* 3D effects, used sparingly
* Soft, neutral background colours
* Strong colour, used sparingly
* Cute icons, used sparingly
* Plenty of whitespace
* Nice big text
but shades of grey isn't on it.

 

[Hannah]

That's one strange perspective that you have of Web 2.0.

I think quite the opposite. The 2.0 design style is pretty colorful, but its the presence of sites that come off as raw. Part of the reason for that is because web 2.0 is made to be very user-friendly where Web as we know it is designed to be application-driven rather than graphically-driven. Internet is going toward the time where it will be served almost as an OS to computing... Not sure how many people actually share that theory though.

Best,

ArtAshes, I have a strange perspective on most anything, so no surprise there! :agree: :lol:

That was one colorful link indeed, I stand corrected.

I'm not sure what you mean by its the presence of sites that come off as raw. Please can you expand on that for me? As I said, it's very possibly me misunderstanding what the whole Web 2.0 concept is.

What can I say, I admit it when I'm wrong and am always willing to learn. As you can see I know zero about design lol but I know what I like!

Internet is going toward the time where it will be served almost as an OS to computing... Not sure how many people actually share that theory though.

And if you don't mind, I'd love to hear more on that when you have time to spare.

To Marks:

The Web 2.0 look is very new and still hasn't got a "established criteria"

White; Grey; Black and Gradients is a common example however things can certainly be taken further.

I think Zone.net has a fantastic "Web 2.0" style design.

Marks, that site is what my impression of Web 2.0 styling was more or less (but without the colored blocks since they ain't grey lol). Thanks for the example!



To purple:

I've actually never seen a black/white/grey web 2.0 site, so maybe I just live in a box or design in an odd manner. Most of theones I've seen or worked on used rather bright saturated fun colors, kind of reminiscent of Apple's fruit colors. When I learned how to design web 2.0 designs my criteria were:
* Simple layout
* Centered orientation
* Design the content, not the page
* 3D effects, used sparingly
* Soft, neutral background colours
* Strong colour, used sparingly
* Cute icons, used sparingly
* Plenty of whitespace
* Nice big text
but shades of grey isn't on it.

Thanks for the info, purple! You know I really need to stop reading about web design on the back of my Cheerios box at the breakfast table and find more reliable sources, ha!

 

[purple]

Hey if Cheerios is teaching about web design its better than nothing. I had never heard of web 2.0 until this summer which was quite behind the curve of learning. I had to learn pretty quick to meet client requests but fortunately its pretty easy as its understated instead of cluttered.

 

[ANMMark]

Hannah, perhaps I can shed a little more light on this, because I come with an opinion from both ends.

1. I absolutely love designing high-tech, high-detail, intricate websites. I'm very much into the fine details that bring a website design to life.

For example, I've not always been a fan of the company 2Advanced itself, but I've always appreciated their work, and the time and detail that goes into their work. That is the style that I've always been geared torwards.

Now, the more and more I've been designing for a 2.0 world, I've began developing an appreciation for that style as well. Most of our clients think we strike a perfect balance between the two styles as well.

- http://www.k2engineering.net
- (no one has seen this yet) http://www.avidinteractive.com/AI2008_Screen.png

Primarily, the focus on Web 2.0 is social interaction. That is to say...a website that interacts with the user, on the same level that a desktop application would. This drives the user to interact with the website in return, to develop one heck of an experience.

However, we're talking more about style than actual use in this topic. Although, the style of a "web 2.0" design relates very heavily in it's ease of use. Afterall, you're trying to get the user to interact with the site, therefore you must make it easy to use....obviously.

This accounts for the somewhat "stripped down" appearance of a web 2.0 site.

The Web 2.0 style in general is, basically, the internet moving in the same direction as other technology.

Let's take cellphones for example. People want a phone that is easy to use, and compact.

Web 2.0 style is geared in that same direction. "Get the information to the user quickly. Make the site compact and to the point, but still make it stylish and attractive, and above all, make it user-friendly."

You'll also find AJAX being used a lot in Web 2.0 sites. The reason for this, is to help bridge the gap between software and website. That is to say, make the site function and react more like an application, and therefore making the site's functionality and features more recognizable to the user. It allows the user to go in many directions on the site, without refreshing the page and/or losing their place like traditional links, etc.

As for the colors used in Web 2.0.... Generally, they are supposed to be colorful, and eye catching. While there is nothing wrong with webmaster who create "2.0" sites in bland black and white, I do believe that they're missing the point of "being creative"

Generally, 2.0 style "should" (but doesn't have to of course) make use of light pastel-ish colors, and minor highlights of bold colors, but colors that still pop when dimmed down to a pastel level.

Overall however, the Web 2.0 trend is bright glossy colors.

I don't know that your perspective is so much warped. I think your experience with the web 2.0 style is still new and fresh, coming from a more detailed oriented genre of design. I felt the same way you did at first, until I had a chance to have some fun with it, and mix the old style with the new.

I probably rambled enough for you to get something completely different than what I was talking about lol, I have that habit sometimes. In any case, I hope that I helped clear it up a little.

 

[Hannah]

Now, the more and more I've been designing for a 2.0 world, I've began developing an appreciation for that style as well. Most of our clients think we strike a perfect balance between the two styles as well.

- http://www.k2engineering.net
- (no one has seen this yet) http://www.avidinteractive.com/AI2008_Screen.png

Primarily, the focus on Web 2.0 is social interaction. That is to say...a website that interacts with the user, on the same level that a desktop application would. This drives the user to interact with the website in return, to develop one heck of an experience.

However, we're talking more about style than actual use in this topic. Although, the style of a "web 2.0" design relates very heavily in it's ease of use. Afterall, you're trying to get the user to interact with the site, therefore you must make it easy to use....obviously.

This accounts for the somewhat "stripped down" appearance of a web 2.0 site.

The Web 2.0 style in general is, basically, the internet moving in the same direction as other technology.

Ohhhh, I see a light dawning here! I get what you mean there, ANMMark. That makes a lot of sense to me, thank you!

You made me think about a site I went to long ago which was so complex not only could I not find what I went there for, I couldn't even find a "search site" option on it or contact us and gave up.

I later discovered from someone that used it regularly that both were hidden behind wee ( and I mean teeny) icons, which is cool only if you know where they are. Even hovering your mouse over them didn't give it away. Web 2.0 is for people like me that lose patience and want something easy eh LOL.

I love the K2 site, it's very sleek looking and the drop-down graphics (which I'm sure there'll be a term for that I don't know) really give it pizazz! :thumbup: I couldn't get the other link to work but that may well be at my end.

Let's take cellphones for example. People want a phone that is easy to use, and compact.

Web 2.0 style is geared in that same direction. "Get the information to the user quickly. Make the site compact and to the point, but still make it stylish and attractive, and above all, make it user-friendly."

You'll also find AJAX being used a lot in Web 2.0 sites. The reason for this, is to help bridge the gap between software and website. That is to say, make the site function and react more like an application, and therefore making the site's functionality and features more recognizable to the user. It allows the user to go in many directions on the site, without refreshing the page and/or losing their place like traditional links, etc.

I'm still with you. You're amazed, I can tell lol.

As for the colors used in Web 2.0.... Generally, they are supposed to be colorful, and eye catching. While there is nothing wrong with webmaster who create "2.0" sites in bland black and white, I do believe that they're missing the point of "being creative"

Generally, 2.0 style "should" (but doesn't have to of course) make use of light pastel-ish colors, and minor highlights of bold colors, but colors that still pop when dimmed down to a pastel level.

Overall however, the Web 2.0 trend is bright glossy colors.

I don't know that your perspective is so much warped. I think your experience with the web 2.0 style is still new and fresh, coming from a more detailed oriented genre of design. I felt the same way you did at first, until I had a chance to have some fun with it, and mix the old style with the new.

I probably rambled enough for you to get something completely different than what I was talking about lol, I have that habit sometimes. In any case, I hope that I helped clear it up a little.

Well that makes me feel better for sure! Thank you so much for that explanation, ANMMark. You helped me a huge amount there.

You realize I now need to go find my son and casually drop in the conversation my Web 2.0 knowledge. He'll faint. :laugh:

 

[Hannah]

Hey if Cheerios is teaching about web design its better than nothing. I had never heard of web 2.0 until this summer which was quite behind the curve of learning. I had to learn pretty quick to meet client requests but fortunately its pretty easy as its understated instead of cluttered.

Thank you, purple. It's nice to know I'm not decades behind everyone else in learning about this!

Yeah, Cheerios have come a long way from the plastic Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles figure in the box you'd wrestle your siblings for. Wait, that might just have been me LOL. I was just kidding about the Cheerios box. If only they were that educational! :laugh:

I don't even know where I first came across the Web 2.0 term actually, truth be told but I did see this last night (now that you all have whetted my appetite to learn more about it). There's an interesting extensive article at OReilly dated Sept 2005 where they compared what was reckoned then to be their Web 2.0 conference's "sense" of what is and isn't Web 2.0 and the shape of things to come.

Just to throw this out as a general question, I'm wondering how much of that brainstorming session's perception is still valid today. This is a snippet of it -

Web 1.0 --------- Web 2.0
DoubleClick --> Google AdSense
Ofoto --> Flickr
Akamai --> BitTorrent
mp3.com --> Napster
Britannica Online --> Wikipedia
personal websites --> blogging
evite --> upcoming.org and EVDB
domain name speculation --> search engine optimization
page views --> cost per click
screen scraping --> web services
publishing --> participation
content management systems --> wikis
directories (taxonomy) --> tagging ("folksonomy")
stickiness --> syndication

This is the link to it in full : OReilly on What is Web 2.0

So my question is to anyone that'd care to respond: would you say that list and /or article's a fair assessment in very broad terms or is it perhaps too restrictive or expansive? Anything there that makes you shudder at how wrong it is compared to where the Web 2.0 concept is nowadays?

Enquiring minds want to know. If I'm going to learn, I want to do it right. Anyway, I have an ulterior motive. I may impress my son yet... :laugh:

 

[ANMMark]

That list fairly accurate, but a little general.

Basically what they have outlined is Web 1.0 which was static, not always user-friendly, and sometimes down right cumbersome (albeit sometimes attractive), moving torward a more social scene, where data is not just created by one person for the world to view, but created and shared by many for the benefit of everyone.

The concept behind Web 2.0 makes the internet an interesting place again (sometimes dangerous, but none-the-less interesting).

With web 1.0 concept, you have a webmaster creating content, for example, and visitors viewing/reading....done.

With Web 2.0 concept, you have a webmaster who creates a platform for others to contribute ideas, opinions, and content, for visitors to read & view, and then also continue the cycle by contributing their own opinions, ideas, and content, and the circle continues.

So yeah, I think the above list is fair, slightly outdated as new technologies emerge, but still a fair comparison.

 

[Hannah]

That list fairly accurate, but a little general.

Basically what they have outlined is Web 1.0 which was static, not always user-friendly, and sometimes down right cumbersome (albeit sometimes attractive), moving torward a more social scene, where data is not just created by one person for the world to view, but created and shared by many for the benefit of everyone.

The concept behind Web 2.0 makes the internet an interesting place again (sometimes dangerous, but none-the-less interesting).

With web 1.0 concept, you have a webmaster creating content, for example, and visitors viewing/reading....done.

With Web 2.0 concept, you have a webmaster who creates a platform for others to contribute ideas, opinions, and content, for visitors to read & view, and then also continue the cycle by contributing their own opinions, ideas, and content, and the circle continues.

So yeah, I think the above list is fair, slightly outdated as new technologies emerge, but still a fair comparison.

You know, I really have learned a lot thanks to your input, Mark and that of others here, all joking aside. I'm very grateful.

I was racking my brains there to see if I could come up with something which might come under it to make sure I'm grasping it correctly.

So would something like RSS feeds which are seen on a lot of websites and blogs these days be considered more Web 2.0 than Web 1.0? They're interactive, encourage the visitor to play a more than passive role aside from simply viewing and most news type item have a comment option somewhere. The only chink in the armor I can see is that you get taken elsewhere to read them...

Yes, no, maybe? Thanks for letting me think aloud.

 

[ANMMark]

RSS feeds are a form of syndication or content sharing. That would fall under the bottom portion of your list:

stickiness --> syndication

So yeah, RSS feeds, while they have been around for a long time, can be considered Web 2.0

 

[purple]

RSS feeds are definitely web 2.0 think of recently you began hearing about podcasts and RSS feeds....about the same time the term web 2.0 starting becoming common design speak, at leastfor me. I think my major problem was I wasn't designing for people who needed/wanted something as dynamic as web 2.0 so I was stuck in a functionality rut. My head wasn't in the sand so much as I wasn't even standing in the sand box. Luckily its pretty easy to get into and more fun feeling to design. Shiny, bright toys for webpages make light work.

 

[Hannah]

RSS feeds are a form of syndication or content sharing. That would fall under the bottom portion of your list:

stickiness --> syndication

So yeah, RSS feeds, while they have been around for a long time, can
be considered Web 2.0

Oh geesh, so they are! LOL. I'll go put on my dunce's hat and stand in the corner. *blush*. I was thinking along the lines of newsletter syndication when I read that, Mark, RSS never crossed my mind. Thanks! :thumbup:

RSS feeds are definitely web 2.0 think of recently you began hearing about podcasts and RSS feeds....about the same time the term web 2.0 starting becoming common design speak, at leastfor me. I think my major problem was I wasn't designing for people who needed/wanted something as dynamic as web 2.0 so I was stuck in a functionality rut. My head wasn't in the sand so much as I wasn't even standing in the sand box. Luckily its pretty easy to get into and more fun feeling to design. Shiny, bright toys for webpages make light work.

I think what it's been with me, purple, is that I'd just not seen enough examples of it up until then to really "get it". I love sites with RSS actually and am a sucker for places like newsvine that always have something new going on. I'm pretty sad in that I can keep Google news in a tab and refresh it all day long to see what's going on in the world. Doesn't take much to make me happy!

I guess I'm a Web 2.0 fan after all and just didn't know it. Thanks for sharing that, purple.

Are you saying that Web 2.0 toys are less work? That's interesting. I'm being nosy again and wondering why from a layman's perspective. I'd have thought all those extras would have made a designer's job harder.

 

[lucas8]

For create a web 2.0 style you have to choose:
-a good font
-make 3d style logo
-light colours

this is the base of all web2.0 ethic

 

[ANMMark]

lucas8, you're sort of on the right track. However, Web2.0 can be any color, font, or logo.

Your outline is correct as far as the typical standard is concerned though. But getting away from "typical" is what creativity is all about, and Web 2.0 is about altering the experience the user gets, not limiting the creativity of the designer.

 

[lucas8]

There are some points to respect to obtain a web 2.0 style:

1. Simplicity
2. Central layout
3. Fewer columns
4. Separate top section
5. Solid areas of screen real-estate
6. Simple nav
7. Bold logos
8. Bigger text
9. Bold text introductions
10. Strong colours
11. Rich surfaces
12. Gradients
13. Reflections
14. Cute icons
15. Star flashes