Comments on: Is Web 2.0 Causing Bad Design?

By: MaciPadForum

MaciPadForum — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:55:20 +0000

My analogy of web 2.0 vs “old style” is a normal book vs a popup book. It depends on what the reader is looking for, I prefer substance over style.

By: preston web design

preston web design — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:02:33 +0000

There seems to be two trends at the moment, either the web 2.0 curvyness or this paper grunge. A good version of either is good, but there seems to be a sea of poor quality sites drifting at half hearted curves and half hearted grunge. – If you’re going to go for it..go for it!

By: Bauhaus Furniture

Bauhaus Furniture — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 03:28:22 +0000

everything has pro’s and con’s we just have to focus on the good things it can do. if not, we just have to weigh them, if the bad things are more than the good things, then we might as well stop using it. that is no problem at all.

By: Website Designer - Barry Mitchell

Website Designer - Barry Mitchell — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:12:07 +0000

I have designed many websites for my self as redesigns for my own business and I can say that the Web 2.0 type site i was using at the start of this year has probably been the most successful website design i have used for my business.
I am now testing the water with a new simpler more corp looking design so only time will tell if my web 2.0 website was the cause of my inflated wallet or was it simply because i am 7th on google for the search term website designer and I am going to get work anyway.

By: web design studio

web design studio — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 01:50:18 +0000

I think web 2.0 designs play an important role in main sites easier to read also more efficient. The trends match the times and conveying a point more accurately and clearly is more important now than ever.

By: Andrei

Andrei — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:32:31 +0000

Well I totally agree with the point you make there.It’s just simple design not bad ones.A web 2.0 site having awesome good designs but bad ratings on usability and user friendliness is worth nothing out there.I guess this is the current trend every website now follows.

By: Katie Radisson

Katie Radisson — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:52:25 +0000

Site design is such a subjective think and how do you know if it works or not really?

I just tried this http://budurl.com/musthavetool for example.

It is free for a good single site owner user and you have to pay if you use more than three sites but it is the absolute best tool I have ever seen or used and because of the free test I got I am now using it on everything I do.

Iit is so insightful I am now going to redesign everything I do as finally I can see what needs doing because of this tool. I can’t say more than that – if you have a site and you care about getting it right then you need this tool http://budurl.com/musthavetool

By: MarkIsenDean van Dildo

MarkIsenDean van Dildo — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:39:51 +0000

Very nice blog.
You site is very interessting for me.

Go on!

By: Gartenmoebel

Gartenmoebel — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:03:55 +0000

Nice blog guy, thanks!

Your articles are very interesting, of course the “i follow you”-post…

By: Dawud Miracle

Dawud Miracle — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:33:31 +0000

Dwayne,
That’s half of what I think Web 2.0 is about, myself. The other half is the ease of publishing afforded by a host of services like Flickr, YouTube and, of course, blogging. Social media is the other half of Web 2.0. Clean design and social media.

By: Dwayne Charrington

Dwayne Charrington — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:56:52 +0000

Web 2.0 exploded in 2005. Although most people think web 2.0 is all about ajax it’s more about clean, usable website designs that may incorporate AJAX and other JavaScript.

I think too many people are misguided by what Web 2.0 really is. It started off as a Trend that grew into it’s own style classification.

- Dwayne Charrington.
http://www.dwaynecharrington.com

By: AnitoKid

AnitoKid — Mon, 28 May 2007 10:04:46 +0000

Hi friend! Do check this out! It increases your Techno rank and PageRank! It works! And I kid you not! Hope to see your name in the stars too! Please advise! More power! The link is at http://anitokid.blogspot.com/2.....-rank.html

By: Dawud Miracle

Dawud Miracle — Sun, 27 May 2007 11:43:48 +0000

David,

Hey, great to see you on my site. Thanks.

I think what you’re saying is that Web 2.0 is good for usability on some fronts but possibly not so good on others.

If that’s the case, I would suggest that those writing Web 2.0 sites could use with a little education around good usability standards. But of course, so can all of us.

By: David

David — Sun, 27 May 2007 11:35:31 +0000

yes

By: Dawud Miracle

Dawud Miracle — Sun, 27 May 2007 05:10:24 +0000

ryan,

I would actually agree. Not knowing Mr. Nielsen personally, it’s hard to say what he knows and doesnt’ know about the modern web. I have seen for years, though, that he seems to have a bias against graphics, beauty and attractive design. So when we begin making more attractive sites, it makes sense that he would go against it.

Is he right? In some ways, sure. But not in everything he says, in my opinion. There is room for elegant, attractive design that still carries high usability quotient.

By: Dawud Miracle

Dawud Miracle — Sat, 26 May 2007 20:49:38 +0000

Laura,

I agree. And I’m thankful they did it. I think it paints the difference of Web 2.0 very well.

By: Laura

Laura — Sat, 26 May 2007 18:52:45 +0000

Dawud,
Thanks for the link to that video. Someone worked very hard on it and it’s a very cool result and simple to understand.
-Laura

By: ryan

ryan — Sat, 26 May 2007 14:25:54 +0000

Dawud,

That’s actually one of my fundamental issues with Nielsen; he eschews conventions that might make the web more usable because they are, in his eyes, “fads”.

I’ll grant that “Web 2.0″ is sort of a dumb labeling of the next evolution of the web, but the concepts aren’t diminished by the term. Nielsen isn’t keeping up with the web and becomes more academic every year. His research is the basis for much of the new web design he now proclaims a fad. Look at his site; locked up content, no RSS, not a graphic to be found until he’s trying to sell his reports. His site is the epitome of what Web 2.0 is trying to get past; content that’s locked in format.

But, to your original post, of course he’s right that some sites are glossy without substance. That doesn’t translate into “all gloss is useless”, as he often tends to imply.

By: Dawud Miracle

Dawud Miracle — Sat, 26 May 2007 13:40:33 +0000

Laura, I think you have a good point. What is Web 2.0? The best example I've seen personally was in this video I posted a while back. Very well done in explaining how Web 2.0 is different than Web 1.0. And from the video I see that there really is a difference. BTW, I don't like the terms either.

By: Laura

Laura — Sat, 26 May 2007 13:19:34 +0000

I’m still trying to understand what Web 2.0 is and what people mean when they refer a site as being Web 2.0. What I think of when I see that phrase is that it is interactive and high tech but still simple.

But why call it Web 2.0? Surely the internet has gone through more than 2.0 phases?

I took a lot of computer classes in 2001-2003 and earned a webmaster’s certificate. But now it’s only 4 years later and I know almost nothing about how things work anymore because I stopped updating my knowledge and was not online much during those few years. I think it’s great that things are changing so quickly but it’s a little frustrating at times as well. Now I’m playing catch-up but it’s slow going.
-Laura