Web 2.0: Mistaking the Forest for the Trees?

By Dave Rogers

Web 2.0 is all the rage. Google lists more than 17 million instances of the phrase. Blog authority Technorati reports more than 36,000 posts on the subject. It's the meme du jour, the Web equivalent of the flavor of the month. Incessantly bantered and bandied, blogged and bloodied, Web 2.0 is but the most recent victim of the Web pandemic of buzzword abuse.

That's not to say Web 2.0 lacks substance and meaning. Not at all. But all the hurrahs and folderol, the attempts of various parties to claim the term as their own only obscure its importance and meaning. There's a reason Google lists 166,000 hits for "What is Web 2.0?"

Which begs the question, "What is Web 2.0?"

Definitions abound. One place to start is Wikipedia (an oft-cited of Web 2.0 principles), where you'll find... well, no solid, consensus definition, at least not when I checked.

Fortunately, Tim O'Reilly of O'Reilly Media was present at the latter-day conception of the term (for it had earlier arisen in other contexts) and published a very helpful essay. Not so fortunately, Mr. O'Reilly is not fond of definitions—but agreeably posted a "compact" version on his blog the following day:

Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an "architecture of participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.

Crystal clear? Think of Web 2.0 as more of a concept than a person, place or thing and you'll find firmer ground. Even better, spend some quality time with O'Reilly's lengthy essay. Finally, keep in mind that the lion's share of Web 2.0 discussion is from a technological perspective; it hasn't yet filtered down to the information architecture, interaction design and similar discussion lists.

Which is a pity because Web 2.0 will have profound effects on the way we design for the Web. For—despite its emphasis on systems, applications and technology—when I read O'Reilly's essay, all I could see was "user." Maybe that's because I'm user-biased; after all, the name of this column is "The User Advocate."

But O'Reilly's article is indeed replete with references to end-users. For example, O'Reilly urges developers to:

• Free users to control their own data.
• Radically trust users. Let them hack your applications, shape your sites, provide your content and participate as equals and co-developers.
• Don't predetermine how users will or must behave. Give them freedom instead—the freedom to work out their own ways of using your applications, services and/or sites.
• Let users serve themselves in the ways they want and need.
• Open the doors. The more people who use your Web 2.0 applications, services and/or sites, the better it will become.

So I'm going out on a limb to say that Web 2.0 is really about users. It's how developers emerging from cubicle cocoons admit what we user-obsessed sorts have long understood—that users rule. All that Web 2.0 talk of systems, applications and platforms is ultimately about empowering end-users to achieve their dreams on the Web without restriction.

Even more, users drive the Web 2.0 juggernaut. It would never have emerged had users not already chosen the sites, services and applications—the Amazons, Googles, Bloggers, flickrs, BitTorrents, et al—that respected them, treated them as partners, engaged them in conversation and made it easy for them to accomplish their goals. The success of such sites and services encourage even the most skeptical buy their tickets the Cluetrain. ("Markets are conversations," remember?) Users are responsible for the emergence of Web 2.0.

Am I imagining Web 2.0 as some kind of Web design nirvana where designers and coders dwell in perfect harmony for the benefit of users? If only. Even now, the discussions on technologies drown out the underlying user-driven essence of Web 2.0. The technologies are vital, of course, but over-emphasizing them means we're mistaking the ecosystem of the forest for the individual trees that make it up.

Web 2.0 thus demands greater attention to end-users than ever before. Just as its technological hurdles challenge developers, Web 2.0 requires more of user advocates. We will soon find ourselves besieged for deeper insight into the minds and practices of end-users.

So how should user advocates—information architects, interaction designers, researchers and user experience specialists—respond to Web 2.0?

• First, we have to take a more proactive role in project teams. Too often, user advocacy is viewed as the "soft skill" of Web development—a nice-to-have option that lacks the importance of the harder skills of programming and visual design. Web 2.0 demonstrates that users shape the future of the Web; that puts us in the catbird seat. It's a wonderful opportunity.
• We have to share what we know. I'm not talking about PowerPoints and lengthy "briefs" that summarize the findings of our user research. If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that the process of user discovery/analysis yields more than its results. It's not the persona itself, for example, that profoundly shapes our thinking about our end-users—it's the work of creating the persona that evokes the magic. We need to share this with the entire team. Mike Kuniavsky and Carolyn Snyder suggest several ways to do this in their books.
• We have to break new ground. Surveys, usability tests, personas, card sorting exercises—they retain their value. But Web 2.0 calls us to reach deeper into the minds and hearts of our users. We're going to need new tools, novel methods and fresh perspectives. I know one thing: Brain science will become immensely important to user advocates.
• We have to move beyond site-centeredness. Even the earliest manifestations of Web 2.0 tell us that the question has changed. It's no longer "How do people use our site?" but "How do people use our site in the context of the greater Web to achieve their goals?" Is it possible to Amazon-ify our sites to capitalize on the collective wisdom of users? Can we Google Maps-ify our sites by making our services hackable? Successes like these demonstrate that users will flock to sites that let them (in the immortal words of Kathy Sierra) kick ass—even if it means they leave our sites! And how do we explain the benefits of that to our clients and companies?
• We have to get off of our design high horses. Web 2.0 insists on continuing the shift from 1990s-style "Daddy Knows Best" paternalistic Web design to a 21^st century "users rule" mentality. No, users are not designers, but users are the ones using the tools that we produce. They possess an expertise that we do not. We want to harness that wisdom, to bring users into the design process, even after the site is launched. Taxonomies mixing with folksonomies, information architecture fluid enough to permit custom permutations! Rigidity is out; flexibility reigns.
• Finally, Web 2.0 tells user advocates that we must be more familiar with the technology. I know—I've ranted in this space about the dangers of being a jack of all trades, so I'm not advocating that we all become coders. Yet the new paradigms of Web 2.0 demand a basic understanding of the technology behind it. A good place to start is Wikipedia.

I still remember the thrill when a colleague introduced me to Web 1.0 back in the 1990s. We've come a long way since—and Web 2.0 can take us even further.