Quote:
Originally Posted by kgun
It is claimed that Tim O'Reilly's article,
What Is Web 2.0 Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software
introduced the term Web 2.0 like Jesse James Garrett's article
Ajax: A New Approach to Web Applications
introduced AJAX.
|
This is a highly ill-informed post.
Your first link does properly explain the concept of Web 2.0 but the use of the word "design" in this context refers to the way sites are structured for a Rich User Experience, which
is web 2.0 but has no connection to web 2.0 and web/graphic-design whatsoever.
Ajax, by nature, correlates to Web 2.0 in the sense that it expedites loading time and contributes to the ease of use. That's the only relation Ajax has to web 2.0 it has nothing to do with graphics or visual aesthetic design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgun
At present I am reading the excellent book The Principles of Beautiful Web Design
by Jason Beaird where he writes about Web 2.0 design.
In KW's web 2.0 design has one or more of the following elements: - Background gradients.
- Rounded corners, like the mozilla homepage.
- Gradients and whitespace.
- Web 2.0 texture trend: Subtle three-dimensional compositing effects. Same example as above.
- Three-dimensional illusion.
- Use of large types for taglines and headers.
- Trend toward using massive fonts, a trend many people claim is borne of a concern for accessibility rather than aesthetics.
Any comments, other important elements in Web 2.0 design and site examples?
KW Search: Web 2.0 design |
This isn't Web 2.0 this deals with the subjectivity of "beautiful design." This is basically like telling someone how to dress. I agree with what weegillis has said with respect to this. Incorporating these visual elements DO NOT make your website Web 2.0
I start to get nervous seeing that this is how many people interpret Web 2.0 in terms of web and graphic design. What happenned to originality?