Make visuals great again 2.09/7/2023 Most Web 2.0 sites come across as friendly, approachable and small-scale, using subtle design decisions to gain our trust. Users can generate content for a web service, promote it in a “viral” peer-to-peer fashion, and improve it’s data quality through their opinions and preferences.īut to convince a visitor to contribute their time – and data – to a web application, you need to get them to trust you first. Integral to Web 2.0 is harnessing the input of website visitors. Wikipedia’s editors may not think it’s a worthy part of the Web 2.0 discussion, but I say bring it on! Let’s take a look at the some of the communication issues facing a Web 2.0 site, and see how the “Web 2.0 look” can help to solve them. Nevertheless, it’s true that many Web 2.0 sites do share a distinctive aesthetic. The objection, I suppose, is that no set of visual criteria can accurately define something as being characteristic of Web 2.0 – if Web 2.0 can be understood as an approach to generating and distributing content, then it needn’t be tied to a particular visual style. Gradients, colorful icons, reflections, dropshadows, and large text all got a mention.Ī few days later the “visual elements” addition had been removed after a vote by wikipedians. If you didn’t blink, you may have noticed that for a few days recently Wikipedia’s entry for Web 2.0 included a subsection describing the visual elements of Web 2.0.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |