Web 2.0 and web 1.0 Applications

net 2.0 and clear 1.0 Applications1. WEB 2.0 1.1 THE friendly READ/WRITE WEB AN INTRODUCTION We live in climb on of study where flow of study is constant and network plays an meaning(a) mathematical function in this flow of in pass wateration communion and swap. The gentleman is on envision tips callable to the advancement in technologies. All this become possible due to land Wide vane which cause to made globe as community. Technology and cultivation become obsolete so quickly. Now we be in era of net 2.0 jibe to Tim Orielly sack up 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all bring in concerted devices tissue 2.0 operations are those that make the most of the inalienable advan dockes of that platform delivering parcel as a continually-updated service that gets better the much people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual drug drug users, sequence providing their possess data and services in a form that dispe nse withs remixing by others, creating network effects through an architecture of corporation, and going beyond the varlet metaphor of meshwork1.0 to deliver rich user experiences (Orielly, 2004). According to Alan smith 2.0 does not show any specific increment in electronic network adjustment its entirely the way the use of network change (Smith, 2009). Murugesan define meshing 2.0 as second phase in the clears evolution, which attract IT professionals, businesses, and network users. upgrade more he spells that entanglement 2.0 is wisdom tissue, people-centric Web, participative Web, and read/ keep Web (Murugesan, 2007).Web 2.0 is people Power web shows the intercommunicateging success, user review, photo sharing (Anderson, 2006) and observe called it gift culture due to users contri besidesion as elaborateness (Mason Rennie, 2007). In learning and teaching process effective evolution of technology, sizeableness of active participation, critical thinking, social pre sence, collaboration and two way dialogue theory are besides important (Beldarrin, 2006). Web2.0 admits more effective fundamental interaction and collaboration, investigation for the ways of using blogs effectively, wikis, podcasts and social network which also apply in education. The main device characteristic of these tools called Web 2.0, which shows active participation from user in the cloy of creation process (Usluel Mazman, 2009). Web 2.0 social networking applications, resigns users not scarce to find out selective information about others, but also to connect with others through have-to doe withing to their profiles, joining and creating group, and ability to send public and private messages to their friends for modelling Face book, MySpace, and sharing with them their happy moments as on Picasa and flicker. It has changed the static information to more active, high-voltage and responsive participation, creation and sharing of contents.On the biases of Oriel ly exposition Markus Angermeier take a crapd a mind map for web 2.0 which explain the key concepts. These important concepts of Web 2.0 let in Usability, Standardization, Design, Remixability, Economy, participation and convergence.Usability is one of the key factors of web 2.0. According to LewisWeb 2.0 applications tend to look more like desktop applications than Web summons they have simple interfaces with plain colours and no busy patterns, logos, or animation. They stand a richness of Interaction previously tack only in desktop applications (Lewis, 2006).He further write about the dynamic content of web 2.0 and information gathering and assembling of information on a single varlet. The source of information is blogs which are like online diaries, pick sharing which allow users to share their favourite web have-to doe withs and other resource like tags (Lewis, 2006). Example systems include del.icio.us and bibsonomy.org. Web 2.0 fulfils the standardization requirements of (W3C) for applications cultivation and content coevals. Design provide rich look and feel with realistic user-interface, eye catching appearance and ease of use. Remixability is the facility that Web 2.0 offers where an application raft be remixed with different set of other minor applications together to form a new-fashioned and more interactive application.The introduction of Web 2.0 technologies such(prenominal) as AJAX breaks this fixed pageboy based model in several ways. Traditional web sites depend on a page update model where each interaction results in an entire page refresh Web 2.0 applications allow part page updates (Pilgrim, 2008). For example, Google Maps do not require an entire page to be refreshed when the user selects a preferred view. Google system gets the data that lies outside of the edge of the map in frame with out refreshing whole page and allow user to grab the map and drag it without any interruption (Zucker, 2007). Gmail also uses AJAX technology i n similar fashion to update the little portion of page when new email arrives (Pilgrim, 2008).1.2 WEB 1.0 VS WEB 2.0 According to Musser and OReilly (2006) Web 2.0 is a set of economic, social, and technology trends that collectively form the terra firma for the next generation of the neta more mature, distinctive medium characterised by user participation, openness, and network effects.The main difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 is creation and presentation of content. In Web 1.0 the majority of users acting as consumers of content, piece in Web 2.0 user can actively participate in content creation and sharing and there are various technologies obtainable to create the content to its maximum potential. The free character of Web 2.0 allow users to create exchange and share contents of any kind (text, audio, video) and tag, comment, and link Pages within group or outside the group. A popular cash advance in Web 2.0 is mashups, which combine or make content in fresh forms (C ormode Krishnamurthy, 2008). For example, street addresses are linked with a map Web site to visualize the locations. This type of site linkage provides facility to create additional link between records of any database with other database. In web 1.0 people implicitly put links of interesting resources to their personal class pages. HTML form tags spread across entire web with no facility of tag base browsing, look engines were using this text as source of web page to improve the quality of front, it limits the tagging in web 1.0 and which restrict collaborative interaction and collective intelligence of community (Brine Page, 1998). eon web 2.0 every one can participate in tagging as it become very easy task and become the key characteristic of portals. Due to the large scale of the tagging community, portals like del.icio.us have accumulated gracious annotations in the form of tags for numerous resources. These tags are used for search and gliding and Google AdSenseform ea sy-to-read summaries for the described resources (Kinsella, et al., 2008)Tim OReilly in his Article What Is Web 2.0 Design Patterns and Business Models for the close Generation of Software, 2005 describe the difference of web1.0 and web2.0 as followsWeb1.0Web2.0DoubleClickGoogle AdSenseOfotoFlickrAkamaiBitTorrentmp3.comNapsterBritannica OnlineWikipediapersonal websitesbloggingEviteupcoming.org and EVDBdomain separate speculatiosearch engine optimizationpage viewscost per click secrecy scrapingWeb services spellingparticipationcontent focussing systemswikisdirectories (taxonomy)tagging (folksonomy)stickinesssyndication(Table 1.0 What is Web 2.0 OReilly, 2005)According to Gibson dynamic updates is one of the important characteristic of web2.0 and this is choose through AJAX technology (Gibson, 2007). Web2.0 websites respond user request such as email checking or instant chatting. Web2.0 applications also provide automatic updates such as stock quotes, sports scores and other infor mation (Gibson, 2007). Mostly countersign sites like BBC, Sky untesteds etcetera continuously updating providing instant information.Web2.0 encourages the active participation from the users to access content and interaction with each other on the Web (Pilgrim, 2008). The content of Web 1.0 was read-only and static. Whereas the transformation of web to changed the read-only web to read-write web enabled user active and collaborative participation. The above graph shows that how persistent growth in internet usage according to the facts provided by profit dry land Stats with in a decade its usage rise from 361 one thousand million to 1650 million users world wide. At the early stages content of web were static in their nature and they are publish for reading purpose there were no interaction between users and user generated content are at ignorable scale. As the routine of users raise it change the way of content presentation and publication on internet and users start active pa rticipation and involvement in the content and collective intelligence increased through this social read/write web. The change brought by Web 2.0 in content publishing and white plague evidently shows the divergence between static web (web1.0) and dynamic web (web2.0). Web 2.0 provides pages with dynamic content which not only can be read by browsers or readers but with the capability of writing, collaborating and sharing friendship at the same time. 1.3 WEB 2.0 ACTIVITIES AND SERVICES there are a quash of Web 2.0 services and applications available which provide the foundation of determine/Write web. These tools allow users to create, edit and modify the content of information with collaboration. Web 2.0-based communities occupy virtual spaces that are open, self-organizing, adaptive, agile, readily accessible, and easy to use (Sabina Leone, 2009). A Web 2.0 platform has shared design of services to support a collaborative and distributed environment in which users can conne ct, share, comment and create new content or software tools (Sabina Leone, 2009).Services offered within the Web 2.0 cloth offers evolutionary services of the internet history. To be active on internet firms have no choice but to find out an charm role using web2.0. Most major firms, including BMW, IBM, Google, and many others, are locating them-selves to find their strategic place, appropriate place and fit within these developments (Wigand, benzoin Birkland, 2008).In todays web we find different type of content. According to capital of Minnesota Anderson (2007) These include blogs, wikis, multimedia sharing services, content syndication, podcasting and content tagging services. Many of these applications of Web technology are relatively mature, having been in use for a enactment of years, although new features and capabilities are being added on a regular basis It is worth noting that many of these newer technologies are concatenations, i.e. they make use of existing servic es.In this section I will discusses about some of the important activities Web 2.0 activities, these are Blogging, Folksonomy and companionable Bookmarking, Multimedia Sharing, Social Networking, Podcasting.1.3.1 BLOGGINGThe term web-log, or blog, was coined by Jorn Barger in 1997 and refers to a simple webpage consisting of brief paragraphs of opinion, information, personal diary entries, or links, called posts, arranged chronologically with the most recent first, in the style of an online journal (Doctorow et al., 2002). Blogs are also called online diaries which enable users, without requirement of any technical skill, to create, publish and organize their own web pages that quit dated content, entries, comments, discussion etc. in sequential order (Alexander, 2006 Castenade, 2007). People can publish information which they collect from various resources and establish relation between them in blogs. to boot RSS and the possibility to post comments make blogs also a collaborativ e and social-interactive software application (Petter et al., 2005). San Murugesan defines blogs a two- way web-base communication tool. Simply it is a website which is used to share thoughts and ideas to leave suggestions and comments. An entry in blog might contain text, image, or link to other blogs and web pages, and possibly the other media cerebrate to the topic. Blogs have ability to generate machine readable RSS and Atom feeds it style they could be use to distribute machine readable summaries of contents and provide the facility of searching similar information from different sources (Cayzer, 2004), (Anderson, 2007).Huge fall of internet users involved in blogging and they are operating in their own environment. As technology has become more sophisticated, bloggers have begun to incorporate multimedia into their blogs and there are now photo-blogs, video blogs (vlogs), and, increasingly, bloggers can upload genuine directly from their mobile phones (Anderson, 2007).Ther e are different types and categories of blogs. Such as Arts, Business, Computers and Technology, Education, Entertainment, Food, History, Law, Libraries, Music, Personal, Political, Regional, Sports and eventually Web. Blogging software allows three levels of privacy password-protected most private blog users blog service listed blog most public blog and will be easily found by search engines. An unlisted blog incomplete fully private nor fully public. Unlisted blog cannot be found without knowing the URL. It could be public only if it contain a link and someone eventually click that link this way these blogs picked by search engines. Since most blogs contain links that anyone might click on, unlisted blogs are not secure, although they may remain relatively invisible if they link to sites that some people access and if the links are not activated (Nardi et al., 2004).Blogging is hygienic known activity which used for online debate and discussions, shared editing, personal commu nication and networking. In terms of groups, it allows various authors or writers to communicate with others to present their views, opinions and to write for teams, groups and group work.1.3.2 FOLKSONOMY/TAGGING AND SOCIAL BOOKMARKINGA tag is a keyword that is added to a digital object (e.g. a website, picture or video clip) to describe it, but not as part of a formal classification system. whiz of the first large-scale applications of tagging was seen with the introduction of Joshua Schacters del.icio.us website, which launched the social bookmarking phenomenon (Anderson, 2007). In web 2.0 Folksonomy as a social web service provide facility to users to turn in and organise online their bookmarks with social annotations or tags. These are high quality descriptors of web pages topics and erect indicators of web users interests (Xu, et al., 2004).Social book marking systems share number of common features (Millen et al., 2005), they also provide the facility of tagging these bookm arks and unlike traditional browser-base bookmarks they can be belong more that one category. Tagging is far more beyond then web site bookmarking. Services like twinkling (photos), YouTube (video) and Odeo (podcasts) allow a variety of digital artefacts to be socially tagged (Anderson, 2007). Users confer not only in posts and articles but also in from of tags which form the metadata of the content which provide valuable information in content search. It also brings benefits of semantic web to current websites which create collaborative tagging or Folksonomy. Del.icio.us is good example of widely accepted and collaboratively created tags, contend creation and blogging (Subramanya Liu, 2008).Social bookmarking systems provide a clear incentive for users to participate (Farrell et al., 2007). The idea of tagging has been expanded to include what are called tag clouds groups of tags (tag sets) from a number of different users of a tagging service, which collates information about t he frequency with which particular tags are used (Anderson, 2007).1.3.3 MULTIMEDIA overlap According to Paul Anderson (2007) multimedia sharing is one of the biggest growth areas amongst services. well known examples are YouTube which provide video storage and sharing Flicker for photographs and Odeo for Podcasts. These services provide writable facility which at the same time makes users as a consumers and initiate active participation and production of web contents. There are million of people participating in sharing and exchange of these types of media by producing their own podcasts, videos and photos. This development was made possible thorough general adoption of high quality and low cost media technology. Such as mobile devices which provide high quality video capturing and photography facility, camcorders with colossal storage capability.Refrences1 Usluel, Y.K. Mazman, S.G. 2009, betrothal of Web 2.0 tools in distance education, Procedia Social and Behavioral Science s, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 818-823. 2 Mason, R. Rennie, F. 2007, Using Web 2.0 for learning in the community, The meshwork and Higher Education, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 196-203. 3 Beldarrain, Y. 2006, remoteness Education Trends. Distance Education 27(2), 139-153.4 Murugesan, S. 2007, Understanding Web 2.0. IT Pro. Vol. July/August 2007. P. 34-41.5 Usluel, Y.K. Mazman, S.G. 2009, Adoption of Web 2.0 tools in distance education, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 818-823. 6 OReilly, T. 2005, Web 2.0 Compact Definition? Published by OReilly Radar author Tim O Reilly Available online at http//radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/web_20_compact_definition.html7 Smith, A. 2009, Web 2.0 and Official Statistics The UK Perspective Available online at http//www.statssa.gov.za/isi2009/ScientificProgramme/IPMS/0146.pdf8 Lewis, D. 2006, What is web 2.0?. articulation 13, 1 (Sep. 2006), 3-3. http//doi.acm.org/10.1145/1217666.12176699 Zucker, D. F. 2007, What Does AJAX Mean f or You?, ACM Interactions, Sept-Oct, 2007, pp 10-12.10 Pilgrim, C. J. 2008, Improving the usability of web 2.0 applications. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth ACM concourse on Hypertext and Hypermedia (Pittsburgh, PA, USA, June 19 21, 2008). HT 08. ACM, brisk York, NY, 239-240. Available online at http//doi.acm.org/10.1145/1379092.137914411 Cormode, G. Krishnamurthy, B. 2008, Key Differences between Web1.0 and Web2.0 Available online at http//www2.research.att.com/bala/papers/web1v2.pdf12 Brin, S. Page, L.1998, The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Comput. Netw. ISDN Syst., 30(1-7)107-117.13 Kinsella, S., Budura, A., Skobeltsyn, G., Michel, S., Breslin, J. G., and Aberer, K. 2008, From Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and back - how did your grandma use to tag?. In Proceeding of the 10th ACM Workshop on Web information and Data Management (Napa Valley, California, USA, October 30 30, 2008). WIDM 08. ACM, New York, NY, 79-86. Available online at http//doi.acm.org/10.114 5/1458502.145851614 Gibson, B. 2007. Enabling an accessible web 2.0. In Proceedings of the 2007 world-wide Cross-Disciplinary concourse on Web Accessibility (W4a) (Banff, Canada, May 07 08, 2007). W4A 07, vol. 225. ACM, New York, NY, 1-6. Available online at http//doi.acm.org/10.1145/1243441.124344215 Adebanjo, D. Michaelides, R. 2009. Analysis of Web 2.0 enabled e-clusters A case study, Technovation, vol. In Press, rectify Proof.16 Sabin, M. and Leone, J. 2009. IT education 2.0. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Sig-information Technology Education (Fairfax, Virginia, USA, October 22 24, 2009). SIGITE 09. ACM, New York, NY, 91-99. Available online at http//doi.acm.org/10.1145/1631728.163175617 Wigand, R. T., Benjamin, R. I., and Birkland, J. L. 2008. Web 2.0 and beyond implications for electronic commerce. In Proceedings of the 10th international Conference on Electronic Commerce (Innsbruck, Austria, August 19 22, 2008). ICEC 08, vol. 342. ACM, New York, NY, 1-5. Available online at http//doi.acm.org/10.1145/1409540.140955018 CAYZER, S. 2004. Semantic Blogging and Decentralized knowledge Management. communication theory of the ACM. Vol. 47, No. 12, Dec 2004, pp. 47-52. ACM Press.19 Nardi, B. A., Schiano, D. J., and Gumbrecht, M. 2004. Blogging as social activity, or, would you let 900 million people read your diary?. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Chicago, Illinois, USA, November 06 10, 2004). CSCW 04. ACM, New York, NY, 222-231. Available online at http//doi.acm.org/10.1145/1031607.103164320 Anderson21 Murugesan22 Xu, S., Bao, S., Fei, B., Su, Z., and Yu, Y. 2008. Exploring folksonomy for personalized search. In Proceedings of the thirty-first Annual international ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in information Retrieval (Singapore, Singapore, July 20 24, 2008). SIGIR 08. ACM, New York, NY, 155-162. Available online at http//doi.acm.org/10.1145/1390334.139036323 Subramany a, S. B. and Liu, H. 2008. Socialtagger collaborative tagging for blogs in the long tail. In Proceeding of the 2008 ACM Workshop on Search in Social Media (Napa Valley, California, USA, October 30 30, 2008). SSM 08. ACM, New York, NY, 19-26. Available online at http//doi.acm.org/10.1145/1458583.1458588 24 Farrell, S., Lau, T., Nusser, S., Wilcox, E., and Muller, M. 2007. Socially augmenting employee profiles with people-tagging. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on User interface Software and Technology (Newport, Rhode Island, USA, October 07 10, 2007). UIST 07. ACM, New York, NY, 91-100. Available online at http//doi.acm.org/10.1145/1294211.1294228 25 Siersdorfer, S. and Sizov, S. 2009. Social recommender systems for web 2.0 folksonomies. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (Torino, Italy, June 29 July 01, 2009). HT 09. ACM, New York, NY, 261-270. Available online at http//doi.acm.org/10.1145/1557914.155795926 MILLEN, D., FEINBERG , J., KERR, B. 2005. Social Bookmarking in the enterprise. ACM Queue, Nov 2005. Available online at http//www.acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Contentpa=showpagepid=344 last accessed 2/02/10.Apendix 1.0 insureNUMBER OF USERS% WORLD POPULATIONINFORMATION SOURCEDecember, 199516 millions0.40%IDCDecember, 199636 millions0.90%IDCDecember, 199770 millions1.70%IDCDecember, 1998147 millions3.60%C.I.AlmanacDecember, 1999248 millions4.10%Nua Ltd.March, 2000304 millions5.00%Nua Ltd.July, 2000359 millions5.90%Nua Ltd.December, 2000361 millions5.80%Internet ground StatsMarch, 2001458 millions7.60%Nua Ltd.June, 2001479 millions7.90%Nua Ltd.August, 2001513 millions8.60%Nua Ltd.April, 2002558 millions8.60%Internet domain StatsJuly, 2002569 millions9.10%Internet World StatsSeptember, 2002587 millions9.40%Internet World StatsMarch, 2003608 millions9.70%Internet World StatsSeptember, 2003677 millions10.60%Internet World StatsOctober, 2003682 millions10.70%Internet World StatsDecember, 2003719 millions1 1.10%Internet World StatsFebruary, 2004745 millions11.50%Internet World StatsMay, 2004757 millions11.70%Internet World StatsOctober, 2004812 millions12.70%Internet World StatsDecember, 2004817 millions12.70%Internet World StatsMarch, 2005888 millions13.90%Internet World StatsJuly, 2005939 millions14.60%Internet World StatsSeptember, 2005957 millions14.90%Internet World StatsNovember, 2005972 millions15.20%Internet World StatsDecember, 20051,018 millions15.70%Internet World StatsMarch, 20061,022 millions15.70%Internet World StatsJune, 20061,043 millions16.00%Internet World StatsSeptember, 20061,066 millions16.40%Internet World StatsDecember, 20061,093 millions16.70%Internet World StatsMarch, 20071,129 millions17.20%Internet World StatsJune, 20071,173 millions17.80%Internet World StatsSept, 20071,245 millions18.90%Internet World StatsDec, 20071,319 millions20.00%Internet World StatsMarch, 20081,407 millions21.10%Internet World StatsJune, 20081,463 millions21.90%Internet World StatsDec ember, 20081,574 millions23.50%Internet World StatsMarch, 20091,596 millions23.80%Internet World StatsJune, 2009