Web 2.0
by Candice Lloyd
If asked about Web 2.0, most people will assume it to be a follow on of Web 1.0. So what is Web 1.0?
The term Web 1.0 refers to the World Wide Web. In fact the term Web1.0 only came about after the coining of the phrase Web 2.0. Before then it was only referred to as ‘Web' or ‘The Web'. Basically, ‘The Web' is a constellation of servers that are all linked together via the internet and store a collection of HTML documents. These documents can be accessed by people using web browsers such as Internet Explorer, Netscape etc. These browsers use internet protocols such as HTTP to display these documents. The Web therefore encompasses two aspects, namely the content (documents) and the delivery platform on which the content runs (technology).
Many think that Web 2.0 is being put forward as a new technology to replace that of ‘The Web' as we know it, but in fact, Web 2.0 still uses the existing technology and protocols such as HTTP and HTML. Web 2.0 is therefore NOT a new technology, but a new way of using the existing technology.
Where the World Wide Web (WWW) is a platform that static content is uploaded to for the purpose of being viewed by visitors to a site, Web 2.0 is principles and practices to consider when designing the functionality for the platform that enables the content to be shared, rated among members of a community and spoken about among the members - encouraging participation between the members.
These are the principles I recognized while researching Web 2.0:
- It's about people, not technology or processes.
Traditionally focus has always been on the processes or technology involved in getting information to people. The concept of Web 2.0 suggests that focus should be on the people that the content is designed for; give them the power to own and share this information amongst themselves.
- The end user pulls relevant information versus a content vendor pushing irrelevant data to the end user.
This idea ties in with the previous point. Making the information available for users to ‘fetch' out of their own free will yields much more effective results than forcing information onto people. It's a change in attitude!
- Share, share, share.
Sharing already exists in organisations; Web 2.0 just makes it a lot easier with tools like blogs, instant messengers etc.
We've all heard it said that “Knowledge is Power”. In every organisation, there are those who have the knowledge and those who need the knowledge, and the best way to bridge this gap is to instil a sharing culture within an organisation. This shouldn't be a directive from the executives; rather let it be self-initiated through the networks. Web 2.0 not only promotes sharing, but encourages it!
- In with Folksonomy, out with Taxonomy.
Taxonomy is the traditional practice of placing objects into various categories. Web 2.0 uses a new approach, called folksonomy. This approach uses user generated tags to associate an object with a desired category / subject.
The problem with taxonomy is that users need to associate multiple instances of an object with the various categories associated thereto, as opposed to folksonomys approach of associating the various categories to one instance of the object. In other words, if an object was relevant to 5 different categories, that object would have to be added 5 times (once to each category). If we look at the example above, let's say a user was to upload a picture of his / her dog and categorise it into a tree structure using the traditional taxonomy approach. S(he) would more than likely have to drill down into each section / category of the tree and upload the picture to each category. In most cases users will only upload the image to the first available category, not aware that it may be associated to other categories as well. In the figure below, the user has only added the image to the ‘Animals' section and not to the ‘Pets' section below.
- The web now acts as an operating platform; not just a delivery platform.
Where previously used solely for the delivery of static content, browsers can now function as operating platforms; capable of delivering dynamic applications, which can be operated by users. Websites have thus evolved from an information display to functional computing applications.
- Software that's enrichment is dependent on the contribution of its users, not its developers / owners.
Let's compare ‘Britannica Online' and ‘Wikepidia' as an example of this. Where ‘Britannica Online' is enhanced by the functionality and information that is added to it by the site developers, Wikipedia is made more effective by the contributions of its audiences.
- Content is owned by the users.
Again if we look at the example used above; the content made available by ‘Britannica Online' belongs to the site owners (i.e. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.) and the content belonging to ‘Wikipedia' is created by, and owned by ‘Wikipedia's' site visitors.
- Encourages participation, debate and THOUGHT.
Owing to the open and collaborative nature of Web 2.0, users can become a part of discussions, communications and debates. Participation in a certain subject invokes thought and therefore a better understanding of the subject at hand. This approach to learning has been found much more effective than reading text, or attending a lecture where no participation is required.
To make this easier to understand, let's look at two scenarios:
Scenario 1: Our Business Brain™ without Web 2.0 Principles
Without the concepts of Web 2.0, CUDA™ would have a constant challenge when deciding on ways to categorise our information. The content developers / authors like to categorise their content in the ‘Business Brain' by object type (e.g. flash, HTML , .pdf) because it is easier for them to remember how the object was made (as opposed to who it was made for). On the other hand, however, the client relationship managers, prefer to search for content based on who it was designed for i.e. the client. Without Web 2.0's folksonomy approach, this would cause much confusion since content would have to be placed into both categories i.e. client name and object type. As you can imagine, version control could become quite a nightmare.
- Without an indication of quality
Also, as a user of the Business Brain looking for information, it could become quite difficult to decide what information is most useful if more than one instance of an object exists. For example, if I was looking for information on ‘Leadership' but found that several users have shared their expertise and uploaded reference material relating to this, how would I select an article? I find this often happens when researching certain topics on the internet – there's such a wealth of information that it's difficult to know where to start.
- Without effective channels for Collaboration
A lack of communication can be the cause of many negative consequences. These consequences could be as serious as a failure to meet objectives or the cause of damaging conflict. On the other end of the scale, the consequences can have less of an impact such as failure to understand a task while completing a course. Without effective channels for communication the risk of miscommunication is high.
Scenario 2: Our Business Brain™ with Web 2.0 Principles
Users are able to add an object to the Business Brain™ once regardless of the number of categories that are relevant to that object. The object can then be categorised into any number of categories using tags. Searching for an object is therefore made much simpler since one instance of that object is returned when searching for any of its related tags – no more expanding of nested lists.
- With an indication of quality
Web 2.0 has encouraged the idea of ‘user-rated content'. The ability to rate content has made finding high-quality information easier on the Business Brain. So if I were searching for articles on ‘Leadership', and several articles were returned, I'd simply sort them by the highest rating; this should give me an indication of the quality of the content.
- With effective channels for Collaboration
Collaboration and open discussions have also added much benefit to the Business Brain in that open discussions, informal chats and structured forums make it much easier for employees on all levels to communicate, ask questions and share information while on the job. So if I was a learner completing a course on ‘Leadership' and I wasn't sure about something in the course, I could simply post my question in the ‘Learning' forum and an expert could answer my question within seconds. This form of collaboration has proven to be much quicker and easier than sending emails or telephonic conversations.
How Web 2.0 applies to Learning
As you can see the benefits of Web 2.0 are endless. The benefits thereof for learning are as follows:
- Learners get a more practical understanding of a subject by interaction and participation.
- Learning material is more easily available due to ability to share content amongst one another and with the use of folksonomy (tagging content).
- Content can be added to or edited by audiences that are subject experts ( e.g. Wikipedia) making it easier to understand or more comprehensive.
- The quality and applicability of learning content increases with contributions by subject experts therefore won't expire or be outdated.
- Learners have the ability to ask questions at real time (while learning) via the use of forums / blogs and online communities.
The principles of Web 2.0 have in fact been around for quite some time, but the benefits of Web 2.0 have only recently been realised. As with most things, different benefits are applicable to different users, so it's up to you to find your own Web 2.0 benefits.
Get involved! We strongly believe in a concept coined by our sister company, Hi-Performance Learning, termed ‘Imago'. This concept aims at bridging the gap that traditionally exists between performing (operating) and learning environments. The way in which Imago attempts to do so, is by enforcing a learning culture, building up a knowledge repository within the company that contains everything employees need to perform their roles effectively and providing employees with any material that they require to perform specific tasks.
To aid this model, CUDA™ Technologies have created a system that uses the principles of Web 2.0 not only to satisfy the requirements of Imago™ but also offers sharing and collaborative functionality, encourages contribution by its users and is centred around the people that use it, not the technology that drives it.
The system we call Business Brain™ conceptually represents the brain of an organisation, not only housing its knowledge but also encouraging an environment where users are able to share and contribute to its worth. It helps organisations learn smarter and perform better.
I would like a demonstration of Business Brain™
|
