Web 2.0

Millard, David E.; Ross, Martin

doi:10.1145/1149941.1149947

Cited by 43 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the term “Web 2.0” is not without its detractors. From a purely technical perspective, the term can be seen as misleading (Anderson, 2007) given its implied dichotomy between earlier and later forms of underpinning Web ICT, prompting Millard and Ross (2006) to question whether Web 2.0 is “hypertext by any other name”. Others such as Constantinides and Fountain (2007) argue that there is little clarity as to the exact nature of Web 2.0 and still no generally accepted definition of the term.…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Web 2.0 and micro‐businesses: an exploratory investigation

Barnes

Clear

Dyerson

et al. 2012

Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The paper reports from an exploratory study into how small businesses use Web 2.0 information and communication technologies (ICT) to work collaboratively with other small businesses. The study had two aims: to investigate the benefits available from the use of Web 2.0 in small business collaborations, and to characterize the different types of such online collaborations. Design/methodology/approach: The research uses a qualitative case study methodology based on semi-structured interviews with the owner-managers of twelve UK-based small companies in the business services sector, who are early adopters of Web 2.0 technologies. Findings: Benefits from the use of Web 2.0 are categorised as lifestyle benefits, internal operational efficiency, enhanced capability, external communications and enhanced service offerings. A 2x2 framework is developed to categorise small business collaborations using the dimensions of the basis for inter-organizational collaboration (control vs. cooperation) and the level of Web 2.0 ICT use (simple vs. sophisticated). Research limitations/implications:A small number of firms of similar size, sector and location were studied, which limits generalisability. Nonetheless, the results offer a pointer to the likely future use of Web 2.0 tools by other small businesses. Practical implications:The research provides evidence of the attraction and potential of Web 2.0 for collaborations between small businesses. Originality/value: The paper is one of the first to report on use of Web 2.0 ICT in collaborative working between small businesses. It will be of interest to those seeking a better understanding of the potential of Web 2.0 in the small business community.

show abstract

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Web 2.0 and micro‐businesses: an exploratory investigation

Barnes

Clear

Dyerson

et al. 2012

Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…SixDegrees set the template for an explosion of social media sites and users in the 2000s: Friendster (2002), MySpace (2003), Orkut (2004), Facebook (2004), Flickr (2004), Youtube (2005), Twitter (2006), Tumblr (2007), and Sina Weibo (2009). This new generation of websites was popularised as 'Web 2.0' by Tim O'Reilly in 2005 18 [159], and recognised as a new generation of hypertext system [135].…”

Section: Hypertext As Social Fabricmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many Web 2.0 systems used their social aspects to improve the browsing experience. Collaborative filtering uses social similarity to find things that might appeal to people-like-you [135], and recommendation systems based on content or network analysis have become a research field in their own right [164]. This glimmer of intelligence is perhaps a sign of things to come, large language models such as ChatGPT offer not only free text search, but free text results-that combine and reinterpret data into the form that was requested (albeit with the dangers of hallucinations [153], and being only backwards-looking 26 ), it remains to be seen how this interaction paradigm will change user's expectations of the systems with which they interact.…”

Section: Hypertext As Interfacementioning

confidence: 99%

Seven Hypertexts

Anderson,

Millard

2023

Proceedings of the 34th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is Hypertext? It has been studied and explored for over 50 years but a complete definition seems ever more elusive. The term is invoked in multiple communities, and applied in radically different domains, but if we cannot reconcile the different perspectives then we will be unable to learn from our shared history, or from each other in the future. In this paper we argue that the longevity and variety of hypertext work makes a simple definition impractical. Instead we suggest different contexts in which hypertext work has been conducted, and then attempt to draw out the relationships and commonalities between them. We describe seven contexts drawn from the literature: Hypertext as a Tool for Thought, as Knowledge Representation, as Social Fabric, as Literature, as Games, as Infrastructure, and as Interface. We argue that these are connected by a common requirement for non-regularity, driven by post-structuralist philosophy, and enshrining existentialist values in our technology. It is the application of these ideas to different problems that gives rise to current Hypertext, as we see the same technical features, and engineering and creative challenges, manifest in otherwise quite different digital domains. CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → Interaction paradigms; Hypertext / hypermedia; Collaborative and social computing; • Software and its engineering → Software infrastructure; • Information systems → Multimedia information systems; Collaborative and social computing systems and tools.

show abstract

“…The first case, the website Flickr.com, is an archetypical Web 2.0 website (e.g. : Alexander, 2006;Breslin, Passant, & Decker, 2009;Cox, 2007;Millard & Ross, 2006;Negoescu & Gatica-Perez, 2008;O'Reilly, 2005;Pissard & Prieur, 2007;Prieur, Cardon, Beuscart, Valafar, Rejaie, & Willinger, 2009) and was launched during the Web 2.0 hype. The second case, deviantART.com, is less frequently associated with Web 2.0 (e.g.…”

Section: Case Studies: Flickr and Deviantartmentioning

confidence: 99%

Studying Web 2.0 Interactivity

Mechant

Marez

2012

International Journal of Interactive Communication Systems and Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With more than one third of the world’s population being online, the Internet has increasingly become part of modern living, giving rise to popular literature that often takes a teleological and celebratory perspective, heralding the Internet and Web 2.0 specifically, as an enabler of participation, democracy, and interactivity. However, one should not take these technological affordances of Web 2.0 for granted. This article applies an interaction framework to the analysis of two Web 2.0 websites viewed as spaces where interaction goes beyond the mere consultation and selection of content, i.e., as spaces supporting the (co)creation of content and value. The authors’ approach to interactivity seeks to describe websites in objective, structural terms as spaces of user, document, and website affordances. The framework also makes it possible to talk about the websites in subjective, functional terms, considering them as spaces of perceived inter-action, intra-action and outer-action affordances. Analysis finds that both websites provide numerous user, document, and website affordances that can serve as inter-action or social affordances.

show abstract

Web 2.0

Cited by 43 publications

References 21 publications

Web 2.0 and micro‐businesses: an exploratory investigation

Web 2.0 and micro‐businesses: an exploratory investigation

Seven Hypertexts

Studying Web 2.0 Interactivity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About