Curated for content, computing, and digital experience professionals

Category: Internet & platforms (Page 8 of 8)

Enterprise 2.0 & Content

Dan Farber has nicely pulled together a couple of points in a post that suggest the inevitability of “Enterprise 2.0”.

Dan references a post by Euan Semple that has been picked-up by Ross Mayfield, Tim O’Reilly and others, and a post of his own where he reports on some of Don Tapscott’s research: “…the 80 million Net generation young adults coming into the workplace will want to be part of an engage and collaborate model rather than command and control.”

In addition to the demographic fundamentals, there is some kind of a parallel here with the evolution of information technology where the rigid structured data in relational databases is now dwarfed by the unstructured or semi-structured content in content repositories and websites. And also with the increasingly distributed IT function.

(rigidly) structured data -> unstructured data or content
(rigidly) structured organization -> unstructured organization

Do these parallels make Enterprise 2.0 more certain? Well, the fundamentals (the demographics and the new expectations and behavior) are true in a very real sense already. But of course this doesn’t mean that any particular Enterprise 2.0 products or technologies or best practices or methodologies or organizational reengineering will work. Dion Hinchcliffe has an extended thoughtful response that reinforces the fact that wikis etc. are proliferating behind the firewall, but also cautions that enterprise IT is a complex and controlled environment where enterprise 2.0 tools need to find a post-adolescent home.

The Small Web, or Web 1.0

Since a year ago at The Gilbane Conference on Content Management in San Francisco I named the big-screen iPod as the “next big thing in Content Management,” I feel empowered to comment on Tuesday’s news from Apple.

It’s no surprise to me that Al Gore and Steve Jobs are buddies, (though it’s hard to know what “buddy” means in that particular class). Both have an uncanny knack for getting people excited about ideas (easy computing, global warming, the Internet, digital music, etc.) that are not particularly unique, and seem almost inevitable once presented on bigger-than-life rear-projection screens. I kept thinking of all the Rocket eBooks, Palm Pilots, brick cell-phones, and tablet-PC devices littering the road to Macworld Expo in San Francisco. Apple’s own Newton is there, as well.

It was in either 1997 or 1998 that I went to a Scitex event in Dayton Ohio and watched a video of the “Scitex of the future.” All I remember is some guy climbing on the side of a mountain with a hand-held device in his hand. He was simultaneously doing all these cool things like talking to someone on a picture phone, analyzing scientific data, calling up a topographical map and sending his location to the helicopter pilot hovering above. And believe me, if Scitex “got it” then it was pretty obvious. Of course we want one device to do everything. And of course we want it to be small, easy-to-use and cool—qualities a company like Scitex could surely not deliver. But Apple will.

Unchained Melodies and Spreadsheets
The traditional business community will look at the iPhone the way it always looks at Apple products. “Not enough security.” “Won’t work with my (fill-in-the-blank).” “Too expensive.” “A consumer product.” But of course we all know it’s the beginning of a massive change in computing. There are millions of people chained to desks that should be out in the world, talking to customers, interacting with employees and smelling the roses. And doing email, and reviewing inventories, and working out who’s going to work the night shift. They don’t really need a big computer, and it would be a hell of a lot more productive not to give them one. And yes, those solutions exist now, but there’s something about Apple that makes the concept seem realistic.

So doesn’t true mobile computing change how we present information? It certainly should. I fear the easy internet capabilities of this next-generation hand-held device will give everyone a cop-out for not doing the work. The Web for a large desktop screen and the Web for an iPhone are considerably different. Only the transmission of the Web has become mobile, not the content, which is currently designed for people sitting in chairs, completely dedicated to the information at hand.

So while the digiterati are all talking about Web 2.0 or the Semantic Web, I say what about the Small Web? What does it mean to make your network available and fully functional to people with 3.5-inch screens as the window? You think it’s tiresome waiting for a Flash animation to load now? See what it feels like while you’re standing in line at the Airport.

Small is Beautiful
We need less information. Everybody knows that. We save too much, we have access to too many things, we over-protect and over-value meaningless drivel that was once thrown out at the end of most days or certainly most years. We carry around Gigabytes of “stuff” like we may need it at any moment. It will be refreshing to see companies struggle with down-sizing information the way they have down-sized everything else. But down-size they must! (Maybe we should issue “word credits” the way they issue “carbon credits”—spew out too many words and you have to trade with a bunch of Buddhist monks so it evens out.)

This is good news for the creative community, where less-is-more has always been the thing. And good news for those designers who have strong print aesthetics–mobile design has more in common with print than with the Web. You don’t approach designing a 3 x 5 postcard the same way you do a letter-size brochure.

Now is the time to start lobbying for more staff, pitching to clients and start working on new self-promo pieces. The eBook has finally arrived, only it sings and dances, too. What a great new format. It requires new design techniques, of course, but most exciting, it requires editing. There will be focus groups and usability studies, but they will only confirm the obvious—people on the move want billboards, not encyclopedias.

Oh oh. Didn’t we fire most of the editors a few years ago? Time to ride through all the brew-pubs and Starbucks in the land shouting “Come back. We need you! You matter again!”

No Time to Waste
I would fight for my company or my clients to have an iPhone-specific Web site up by June, and to have all PDF downloads available in a special iPhone-optimized format at the same time. Don’t take a “wait and see” attitude. Take a chance—it’s not even a very big one. Start re-designing your information and it’s architecture for this format. It’s different and it matters.
Oh yeah. And hire a couple of kids right away. Any will do.

What’s Wrong with Web 2.0

In a word, “expectations”. There is nothing wrong with the moniker itself, but when used as if it were a thing-in-itself, as something concrete, it inevitably becomes misleading. This is not something to solely blame on marketing hype – people crave simple labels, marketers are just accommodating us. We need to take a little responsibility for asking what such labels really mean. When forced to reduce Web 2.0 to something real, you end up with AJAX. There is also nothing wrong with AJAX or its components. The problem is overestimating what it can do for us.

Bill Thompson’s post “Web 2.0 and Tim O’Reilly as Marshal Tito” yesterday on The Register’s Developer site, is perhaps a little overstated, but is useful reading for VCs and IT strategists. Here’s a sample:

Web 2.0 marks the dictatorship of the presentation layer, a triumph of appearance over architecture that any good computer scientist should immediately dismiss as unsustainable. … Ajax is touted as the answer for developers who want to offer users a richer client experience without having to go the trouble of writing a real application, but if the long term goal is to turn the network from a series of tubes connecting clients and servers into a distributed computing environment then we cannot rely on Javascript and XML since they do not offer the stability, scalability or effective resource discovery that we need.

Web 2.0, 3.0 and so on

The recent Web 2.0 conference predictably accelerated some prognostication on Web 3.0. I don’t think these labels are very interesting in themselves, but I do admit that the conversations about what they might be, if they had a meaningful existence, expose some interesting ideas. Unfortunately, they (both the labels and the conversations) also tend to generate a lot of over-excitement and unrealistic expectations, both in terms of financial investment and doomed IT strategies. Dan Farber does his usual great job of collecting some of the thoughts on the recent discussion in “Web 2.0 isn’t dead, but Web 3.0 is bubbling up“.

One of the articles Dan links to is a New York Times article by John Markoff, where John basically equates Web 3.0 with the Semantic Web. Maybe that’s his way of saying very subtly that there will never be a Web 3.0? No, he is more optimistic. Dan also links to Nick Carr’s post welcoming Web 3.0, but even Carr is gentler that he should be.

But here’s the basic problem with the Semantic Web – it involves semantics. Semantics are not static, language is not static, science is not static. Even more, rules are not static either, but at least in some cases, syntax, and logical systems have longer shelf lives.

Now, you can force a set of semantics to be static and enforce their use – you can invent little worlds and knowledge domains where you control everything, but there will always be competition. That’s how humans work, and that is how science works as far as we can tell. Humans will break both rules and meanings. And although the Semantic Web is about computers as much (or more) than about humans, the more human-like we make computers, the more they will break rules and change meanings and invent their own little worlds.

This is not to say that the goal of a Semantic Web hasn’t and won’t generate some good ideas and useful applications and technologies – RDF itself is pretty neat. Vision is a good thing, but vision and near-term reality require different behavior and belief systems.

Newer posts »

© 2024 The Gilbane Advisor

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑