41 another pov

http://www.theserverside.com/articles/article.tss?l=RiAWeb

2.01?!

.V

posted at 10:41 pm on January 17, 2006 by Vic Cekvenich

42 A question to Mr Zeldman

I’m thing about creating a website about web 2.0.
Do you think that the domain name web30.pl is a good idea?
Please tell me what you think.
Kindest Regards,
Your devoted reader, Greg

posted at 11:11 pm on January 17, 2006 by Greg Szczotka

43 Wireframing?

Okay, so what’s “wireframing”?

posted at 11:52 pm on January 17, 2006 by Charles Martin

44 Hit the Nail on the Head

Unfortunately, the whole “Web 2.0” buzzword extravaganza has gotten out of control, we (as an industry) have the marketing folks and team leaders spouting off the words with no comprehension of what they’re actually talking about (yeah, this is nothing new I know). The problem comes when in 6 months when the “new hotness” comes out and the customer is wondering why you’re still working on their “Web 2.0” site, but now your sales rep is telling him how he should go ahead and pony up for a complete recode for “Web 3.0” standards… This will confuse and infuriate the customers (the businesses, not the users) past the already bulging vein on their foreheads. However, first we need to define what Web 2.0 is before throwing it around so haphazardly. Ok, that’s my $0.02 and I’m getting off my soapbox now…

posted at 11:53 pm on January 17, 2006 by Wells Doty

45 Nice Article

Wow gotta say you put exactly the rest of us are thinking. Stares throughout the world for saying web developer AMEN!

posted at 12:34 am on January 18, 2006 by dave sherratt

46 some more?

I’m wondering when the next Zeldman piece will air? No offense, but this was (to me) the most interesting piece ALA has published in a while… more, please.

posted at 12:39 am on January 18, 2006 by brian christiansen

47 Wireframes

In response to the difficulties in wireframing AJAX, perhaps a new paradigm is in order. Or more accurately an old paradigm applied to a new medium. Requirements documents in software engineering are sometimes burdensome and involved, but they are proven ways to document software applications including expectations of the user interface. Perhaps as the web moves towards similar behavior as confronted by traditional software, we on the development end should be moving towards similar techniques for documenting and accomplishing that behavior. However, I understand that the last thing a web “designer” wants to look at is 120 pages of specifications.

posted at 01:23 am on January 18, 2006 by Marke Hallowell

48 Right, But does your web go to 11?

This has got to be one of the more interesting articles posted here in a while now. I really enjoy Zeldman’s take on this. Why exactly does everyone want to jump on this Web 2.0 bandwagon, it’s like saying .com this .com that, we all should remember how that buzzword loving time in our economy ended. So try to nip this one in the bud and not throw around Web 2.0 to everyone you want to invest in your development startup, be modest, let them ask you about Web 2.0 and explain to them what it really is. Instead try to focus on making a good product, not one for the sake of throwing around a buzzword.

posted at 01:46 am on January 18, 2006 by Max Murphy

49 nicely put

you just made an irregular reader out of me. and, wondering at the way my post is being previewed right below as i type, A List Apart 4.0, is obviously next.

posted at 02:03 am on January 18, 2006 by Andi Marshall

50 Web 2.0 Apps Feel A Lot Like DOS apps

Web 2.0 feels a lot to me like DOS applications of yesteryear: each application had different UI idioms for doing everything. It is very easy to build something that can totally confound users.

This was almost impossible to do with Web 1.0.

posted at 02:32 am on January 18, 2006 by Rob Schoening