A First Monday article systematically comparing & contrasting Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 website technology recently caught my interest, and I think it points a way to making more informed decisions regarding “next-generation” library catalog interfaces and Internet-based library services in general.
Web 1.0 versus Web 2.0
Graham Cormode and Balachander Krishnamurthy in “Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0“, First Monday, 13(6): June 2008 thoroughly describe the characteristics of Web 2.0 technology. It outlines the features of Web 2.0, describes the structure of Web 2.0 sites, identifies problem with measurement of Web 2.0 usage, and covers technical issues.
I really liked the how it listed some of the identifying characteristics. Web 2.0 sites usually:
- encourage user-generated content
- exploit AJAX
- have a strong social component
- support some sort of public API
- support the ability to form connections between people
- support the posting of content in many forms
- treat users as first class entities in the system
The article included a nice matrix of popular websites across the top and services down the side. At the intersection of the rows and columns check marks were placed denoting whether or not the website supported the services. Of all the websites Facebook, YouTube, Flicr, and MySpace ranked as being the most Web 2.0-esque. Not surprising.
The compare & contrast between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 sites was particular interesting, and can be used as a sort of standard/benchmark for comparing existing (library) websites to the increasingly expected Web 2.0 format. For example, Web 1.0 sites are characterized as being:
- stateless
- shaped like a “bow-tie” where there is a front-page linked to many sub-pages and supplimented with many cross links between sub-pages
- covering a single topic
Whereas Web 2.0 websites generally:
- include a broader mixture of content types
- produce groups or feeds of content
- rely on user-provided content
- represent a shared space
- require some sort of log-in function
- see “portalization” is a trend
For readers who feel they they do not understand the meaning of Web 2.0, the items outlined above and elaborated upon in the article will make the definition of Web 2.0 clearer. Good reading.
Library “catalogs”
The article also included an interesting graphic, Figure 1, illustrating the paths from content creator to consumer in Web 2.0. The images is linked from the article, below:
The far left denotes people creating content. The far right denotes people using content. In the middle are services. When I look at the image I see everything from the center to the far right of the following illustration (of my own design):
This illustration represents a model for a “next-generation” library catalog. On the far left is content aggregation. In the center is content normalization and indexing. On the right are services against the content. The right half of the illustration above is analgous to the entire illustration from Cormode and Krishnamurthy.
Like the movement from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, library websites (online “catalogs”) need to be more about users, their content, and services applied against it. “Next-generation” library catalogs will fall short if they are only enhanced implementations of search and browse interfaces. With the advent of digization, everybody has content. What is needed are tools — services — to make it more useful.