David Hyett, Head of Information and Records Management, British Antarctic Survey gives a plenary talk on Web 2.0 - Whatever Happened to Web 1.0? At the start of the redevelopment of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) external Web site, there was initial enthusiasm for "Web 2.0" with many stakeholders using the term without actually knowing what it meant. Fancy, interactive interfaces, are no substitute for good information architecture, good navigation and good content - all of which should be underpinned by understanding the user and their goals. The session will look at how the Web 2.0 concept can be interpreted and will argue that it should be used with caution. Web 2.0 by any definition is likely to have its place within an organisation's Web strategy but should only be considered once we've got Web 1.0 right! And let's now forget about "Usability 2.0" and "Accessibility 2.0" either! The experience and lessons learned by BAS will be highlighted.

Helen Aspell, Head of Digital Marketing, University of Southampton and James Souttar, Precedent give a plenary talk on Web 2.0 and Brand: Theory and Practice. There are thousands of Web 2.0 technologies available online right now, from Twitter to Second Life, all with tangible marketing benefits but not necessarily to every organisation or audience. In the current climate of Web 2.0, marketers are being expected to prove their understanding of new technologies and demonstrate how their brand is using and responding to the changing environment by incorporating social media into their digital strategies. This challenge is particularly acute in large, devolved organisations such as universities where technology decisions are often made at arms' length from the marketing function by IT teams or individual departments, neither of whom may consider the implications that building an online presence in Web 2.0 may have on an audience's perception of the organisation's brand. During the talk, Aspell and Souttar will outline how the changing landscape of digital technologies will shape the agenda of brand development in the future. This will include the principles of branding in the modern age with its application and embracing of Web 2.0 technologies. Moving from theory into practice, the reference will be the re-brand of University of Southampton with isoton used to demonstrate how Web 2.0 technologies can reflect and enhance an institution's brand.

The Best Web 2.0 Software of 2005
http://web2.wsj2.com/the_best_web_20_software_of_2005.htm

Summary: The overhead of performing even simple tasks online is getting larger and larger. I question the security of almost all these supposedly "secure" messaging systems. And I'm tired of the 'Utopia of Rules' mindset pervasive in every organization. It's exhausting how they expect customers to constantly adapt to their needs.

I don't know if you recall the game Kerplunk. It's a classic children's game that has been around for decades. I remember playing it with my sister. The basic setup involves a transparent plastic tube, a number of sticks, and marbles. The sticks are threaded through the tube to form a web or nest at the bottom on which the marbles rest. We'd take turns removing a stick at a time, trying not to let any marbles fall through the web and out of the tube. At some point, the remaining sticks can't hold the marbles and everything falls down.

The modern web reminds me more and more of a big Kerplunk game and I think the marbles are about to fall. What started out as an easier way to do things like shop, bank, and get health care information has become increasingly complex over time. More and more of the email I receive seems to be simply directing me to log into some bespoke system to retrieve a message or engage in some workflow. And even with a password manager, the act of logging in is often a chore with different user interfaces, custom MFA requirements, and weird rules for passwords. Once you're on the system, session time-outs induce their own form of anxiety since stepping away for a few minutes to attend to something else might require going through the whole Kafkaesque process all over again. The modern web has turned into a dystopian theater of the absurd where even reading a simple appointment reminder from your doctor requires several minutes of stress-inducing interaction with baroque systems and processes.

And it's not just doctors, of course, banks, government agencies, hospitals, ecommerce sites, and customer service systems all adopt these special purpose messaging systems. If you ask these organizations why they use bespoke messaging systems, they'll list things like "timely and improved communication," "convenience," and "privacy and security." But the real reason is that it's more convenient for them because these systems are integrated with their backends and make their processes more manageable. There's certainly nothing about them that's more convenient, timely, or better than email for their customers¹.

I also question the privacy and security premise. Email can be insecure. And your email provider can see the contents of your emails. But the messaging system run by your doctor or bank is likely less secure than the email systems run by Apple, Google, and the others. And achieving privacy by making everything incompatible so that you have to use a different system for each correspondent is like chopping off your finger to prevent hangnails.

How did we get here? Bureaucracy. Not just government bureaucracy, but bureaucracy of all kinds. In Utopia of Rules², David Graeber talks about how power imbalances force the less powerful group to perform what he calls interpretive labor, the work of understanding and implementing what's better or more convenient for the more powerful partner. People are not equal participants in online interactions. We don't have the tools to be fully embodied online³. Because of this we are forced to play by the rules organizations online who are digitally embodied with servers, identity systems, customer management systems, and so on. And part of that is being forced to use their inconvenient and anemic messaging systems.

What's the answer? People need tools. I think digital wallets (a bad name for an important tool), autonomic (peer) identifiers with strong cryptography, and verifiable credentials are a huge step forward. These tools provide the means for people to be peers online rather that mere ghosts in someone else's machine. That's why I insist on using the term self-sovereign rather than decentralized to describe these systems. Cogito Ergo Sum.

Notes

1. For a deeper dive into why one-off messaging systems are never as good as email, see Rich Sharing and Personal Channels. Email and other useful messaging systems exhibit a property called rich sharing that makes them much more robust that the simple idea of "sharing a message" would bring to mind.
2. If you're interested in power imbalances and how they come about, I can't recommend Graeber's book highly enough. He had such a keen understanding of this problem and wrote about it in a way that's both informative and entertaining.
3. I talk about this in more detail in Chapter 17 of Learning Digital Identity when I discuss authentic digital relationships.

Photo Credit: Playing Kerplunk from DALL-E (public domain) Prompt: Draw a picture of a boy and girl playing kerplunk that's 1200x500 pixels

Tags: web identity authentication authorization verifiable+credentials

With the emergence of the Web 2.0 phenomena, technology-assisted social networking has become the norm. The potential of social software for collaborative learning purposes is clear, but as yet there is little evidence of realisation of the benefits. In this paper we consider Information and Communication Technology student attitudes to collaboration and via two case studies the extent to which they exploit the use of wikis for group collaboration. Even when directed to use a particular wiki designed for the type of project they are involved with, we found that groups utilized the wiki in different ways according to the affordances ascribed to the wiki. We propose that the integration of activity theory with an affordances perspective may lead to improved technology, specifically Web 2.0, assisted collaboration.

The paper explores the application of Web 2.0 technologies to support product development efforts in a global, virtual and cross-functional setting. It analyses the dichotomy between the prevailing hierarchical structure of CAD/PLM/PDM systems and the principles of the Social Web under the light of the emerging product development trends. Further it introduces the concept of Engineering 2.0, intended as a more bottom up and lightweight knowledge sharing approach to support early stage design decisions within virtual and cross-functional product development teams. The lessons learned collected from a cross-company study highlight how to further developblogs, wikis, forums and tags for the benefit of new product development teams, highlighting opportunities, challenges and no-go areas.

Online communities and institutions create new spaces for interaction, but also open new avenues for the emergence of grievances, claims, and disputes. Consequently, online dispute resolution (ODR) procedures are core to these new online worlds. But can ODR mechanisms provide sufficient levels of reputation, trust, and enforceability for it to become mainstream? This contribution introduces the new approaches to ODR and provides a description of the design and structure of Ontomedia, a web-based platform to facilitate online mediation in different domains.

Chempound is a new generation repository architecture based on RDF, semantic dictionaries and linked data. It has been developed to hold any type of chemical object expressible in CML and is exemplified by crystallographic experiments and computational chemistry calculations. In both examples, the repository can hold >50k entries which can be searched by SPARQL endpoints and pre-indexing of key fields. The Chempound architecture is general and adaptable to other fields of data-rich science.

With the ever-increasing quality of third-party tools lowering the barriers for enthusiasts to provide Web-based services for their teams and departments, what's the point in having an insitutional Web development team? Can they provide anything that someone with the time, motivation and a decent tool can't? Should Web Services just be innovating on top of these services (and if so, how?), or should they be disbanded in favour of outsourcing? A short introductory presentation will be followed by a roundtable discussion with sweets on offer to keep our energy up! The session was facilitated by Phil Wilson and Tom Natt, University of Bath.

Web content is increasingly produced by authors without extensive web design skills - whether by staff using CMSs, VLEs and courseware or by students publishing their coursework online. The challenge of making sure this content is as accessible as possible becomes much more significant, and inevitably a burden on the individual or institution. The quality of the authoring tool in supporting accessible content creation becomes critical - however support for the W3C's Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) by authoring tool vendors seems to be seen as a specific (and usually low priority) customer request rather than a fundamental quality of the tool. For institutions considering selecting a VLE, CMS or other tool that supports web content publication, how can they best express accessibility requirements so that the tool takes its share of responsibility for accessible output? And if existing tools fall short of ATAG conformance, how can the effect of this on the accessibility of content best be managed? The session was facilitated by David Sloan, University of Dundee.

During this session there will be an exploration of the use of Web 2.0 technologies in brand based marketing. The session will use the results of the recent collaboration between the University of Southampton and Precedent Communications http://www.southampton.ac.uk/isoton to demonstrate how developing a consistent approach to the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies can be acheived by considering your institution's corporate objectives and audiences. Discussion Groups will consider how the Web 2.0 technologies used in brand based marketing can be applied to their institution. The session was facilitated by James Souttar, Precedent.

This session will review how a number of Web 2.0 technologies that are both internally and externally hosted and can be used to future proof the way that teams in institutions can work effectively together. The session was facilitated by Andy Ramsden and Marieke Guy, University of Bath.

Brian Kelly, UKOLN and Lawrie Phipps, JISC will review the barriers which we may face when implementing a Web 2.0 strategy and will outline a model and strategies which can be be used in order to address such barriers.

The Web is changing. It is no longer a phenomenon but has integrated itself within our culture. However for those creating Web services times are far from stable. A wide range of Web-based applications continue to be developed, such as blogs, wikis, podcasting, social networking software, RSS feeds etc. The Semantic Web is still on the cards and now we have Web 2.0, an opportunity for a more sharing, more participative Web? Is it just hype? Will these progressions make any difference to the way in which we go about our work? What does Web 2.0 mean to the Institutional Web? This panel session offered three different perspectives on the potential of Web 2.0 within learning activities - the library perspective, the commercial perspective and the HE/FE perspective.

Michael Webb, IT and Media Services Head, University of Wales, Newport gave a talk about how Web 2.0 technologies are changing the way our staff and students (potential, current and past) relate to one another and our Universities. Embracing these technologies provides a great opportunity to enhance the University experience, but also presents a number of risks and challenges. So how do Universities develop a strategic approach to embracing Web 2.0?

There has been a lot of chatter lately about Web 2.0, as if the Internet is a versioned software application.

So what is Web 2.0? Simply put, Web 2.0 is a perceived transition of the web to web applications.

What is Web 2.0?

Whitepaper called Exploiting Web 2.0, Real Life XSS-Worm.

For all of their promise, mashups introduce a number of accessibility and usability problems stemming from inaccessible services, inconsistent keyboard navigation and other issues.

With Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA), developers can make advanced Web applications accessible and usable to a broad range of people with disabilities.

Wandering around the internet, I was searching for 2 different things at the same time: a hotel for a romantic weekend getaway (with our lovely dog!) and a new apartment to rent. I suddenly asked myself: “Why not renting a vacation home instead of booking the usual same type of hotels (those few hotels that [...]

Payton, Susan

VanRysdam, Peter, 1978-