What exactly is Web 2.0 and how will buILder technology be affected by what people believe is the "new Internet"? I find it necessary to define Web 2.0 for the purposes of this blog. There seems to be a lot of confusion over where Web 2.0 begins and ends. Wikipedia gives a great explanation of Web 2.0 and can be found by clicking here. There are 10 principles that guide what Web 2.0 is. These principles can be found in the article, but I'd like to mention them right here as well.
- The web as a platform
- Data as the driving force
- Network effects created by an architecture of participation
- Innovation in assembly of systems and sites composed by pulling together features from distributed, independent developers (a kind of "open source" development)
- Lightweight business models enabled by content and service syndication
- The end of the software adoption cycle ("the perpetual beta")
- Software above the level of a single device, leveraging the power of The Long Tail
- Ease of picking-up by early adopters
Various bloggers have commented that buILder is nothing more than a glorified template, and in some ways I must agree. One blogger pointed out that the technology would be more aligned with the social direction the Internet is taking by making it possible to collaborate with teachers in other cities, states or even countries. What do you think about this? How else could buILder be made more social?
5 comments:
Another way to improve Builder might be to enable tagging of different builder sites. This could be done by both the original creators and users, who might find a new use or purpose for a builder.
There could then be a means of searching and browsing tags to help users find new builders to use.
MandatoryBlogger.
As with other forms of information, Builder lessons that we feel will be helpful, can be tagged. But I think a great way to increase the sociability of BuiLDer would be to leave comments for the purpose of updating and editing content, and give feedback to the success or failure of the lesson. Of course, creator would only be the one capable of actually editing the lesson, but feedback would be available for all to utilize.
I'm still really into Mandatory's idea of being allowed to use various builders as templates for others, which I wouldn't exactly put at the level of other social uses, but is definitely a helpful way to get over the learning curve I felt when using builder myself.
Looking back at the builder example and AB's comment, isn't it interesting that the contact information shows:
"Questions or comments? Contact info@informationliteracy.org for general information,
or webmaster@informationliteracy.org regarding the website itself."
I don't expect this feedback necessarily reaches the creator of the individual builder. Sure, the creator could put his/her email address somewhere on the Builder pages, but that would just seem to invite the spambots to attack.
I'm surprised that some degree of feedback isn't integrated more efficiently into the site already.
I'm with you guys, mandatory and yalit. The issues with buILder were off the charts. Hopefully the bugs and kinks will be worked out for the next group of students attempting to create one.
Post a Comment