From Tom Raferty

IT@Cork is a not-for-profit networking organisation for IT professionals. IT@Cork organises regular information and networking events which are free for its members.

One of these events - the upcoming Web 2.0 half-day conference is the target of a cease and desist letter (below) from the legal team of O’Reilly publishers. Basically O’Reilly are claiming to have applied for a trademark for the term “Web 2.0″ and therefore IT@Cork can’t use the term for its conference. Apparantly use of the term “Web 2.0″ is a “flagrant violation” of their trademark rights!

Rather frightening if not. Perhaps this is the proof we need for addressing trademark insanity.  Web 2.0? Are you serious?

First, there was the browser, and it was good. Then the browser got old, and something more was needed. People came up with a way to create easily, and it was good. Now, many create, yet not many navigate. Web 2.0 has difficulties scaling.

The concept of a portal page is very Web 1.0. A portal points (for the most part) to content that someone else has deemed important. At best, you have given the portal a list of things you like and dislike, and the portal tailors the options based on that. It’s not enough.

The portal personalization solution currently used focuses on metadata. It simplifies what you, the reader, wants down to a simple list. A list that you (generally) actively create. This same option is used in more Web 2.0 applications as well. When you read this, you will notice that I have placed this article in a collection of categories (or tags). I have assigned metadata to this entry for the simple fact that this metadata enables others to more easily reach my data.

I could wax on about metadata for quite some time, but the point has been made. People use it constantly, but they have to make it. Why? If I am writing a blog entry, why should I need to provide an “abstract” of what content exists in the entry? Because, the ways that people find my site are directly based upon that metadata. We live in a metadata age.

Metadata isn’t going anywhere for quite some time. I’m going to be so bold as to say that until metadata isn’t the primary way that people find and use content on the internet, it will still be the age of Web 2.0, regardless of what the actual label used is.

Web 3.0 is going to be immersive, not immersive like a 3-D environment is (that would be, at least at this point, unusable), but like a good conversation witha friend is. Web 3.0 will have the conversations of Web 2.0, but it will approach these conversations differently. Web 3.0 will be focused on data.

The actual content of this entry is important, otherwise I would simply have an entry that said, “I am currently thinking about Web 3.0, data, and metadata.” The comments would be metadata too. So, instead of “You are an idiot,” we would get “personal_comment.” What I am describing is unfair; labeling systems have been around almost as long as the written word. They aren’t going anywhere.

What I am saying is that the metadata should be almost invisible. An outside source should look at this entry (and not realize that it is barely coherent drivel) and determine what the article is about. It should see a reader that spends an inordinate amount of time looking at “big picture” discussions of metadata and data and recommend that the reader look at this entry. The reader shouldn’t have to say tthat he or she has an interest in metadata vs. data.

I suspect that something along the lines of what I am suggesting would not be a web application itself, but a modification of the browser. The browser should “learn” what a user likes (although it must have an “ignore this site” option somewhere) and present other sites that the user would find interesting without any intervention.

One web site ha sthe groundwork fairly done for the true “data” system, Google. If they were ever to come out with a Google Browse (and if they use that name, I want money or a job), I would expect it to work much like I’ve described.

I have done what I could. Not having a static page to actually present the material is a bit of a bummer, but I think the overall design should stand for itself. At this point, I have taken a look at the other entries (I had been avoiding it in order to keep my design “mine”), and I must say that some of them are truly impressive.

I hope the beeb views this whole experience as a success, because I have already seen a number of really creative entries. That said, I do feel that my design can hold its own. Regardless of the results, I do feel the experience was a nice creative outlet. I haven’t had the opportunity to stretch those muscles that much recently (except for here, but the content generally forces a fairly simple design).

Hope the other designers got as much enjoyment out of this as I did…

Oh yeah, you can take a look at my entry at http://bbc.billoday.net/.

And, from my entry:

My goal with this reboot was to incorporate two major features into a site that, simply due to its size is rather resistant to change. First, I wanted to include prototypical Web 2.0 content, which I feel I managed to do rather well with both the “From You” and the “My Places” panels. I also wanted to give a greater degree of customizability, which is evident both in the main page itself, as well as the within the “change this” page.

That said, my overriding goal was to implement these items while maintaining some degree of the “old bbc.co.uk.”  I think that anyone coming to this site would have little problem with making the adjustment, but would be able to take advantage of the new features.

Unfortunately, time has proven a bit of a problem in that I am submitting merely two images. I would much rather to present my design at least as a working static model of what could be done.  With an HTML design, I would be better able to implement a few other features that as of now will merely rest, never realized. An example of this would be barely increasing the text size of headings that large numbers of visitors click on, giving them precedence, much like the “glass” design has done.

Alright, so we already have a design that I’ve said that I liked. Why ae we back here with yet another design? The answer is simple: I still don’t have enough to do with my life. Aside from that, I have found Mr. Martin Belam’s most recent entry on the reboot blog inspiring in some sense.

One of the areas that comp 3 was lacking in was search (it was also browse, but we will get to that later). I had the standard search bar, but I removed one of the few items that followed the whole “wisdom of crowds” theory in the current design of the site. Today, it makes a triumphant return.

You will notice a blue bar under the news breakout I designed. Within this bar is a split up search box that has everything the current search has. You will also notice the A-Z index added under browse. This is the inspiration I was speaking of.

By including the A-Z widget right there with search, I was able to remove the old blue sidebar. With that content gone, I changed the “My BBC” panel to a three-column layout. This enhances the usefulness of the homepage as a portal.

Functionality-wise, only a small handful of changes have been made. Most of these are designed to improve usability within the system. First, the personalized greeting and login options have been moved down to the MyBBC panel. Even with the news breakout being modifiable, the most cutom content will be within the My BBC panel. Therefore, the user will see a logical connection between the two.

Next to the greeting, there is a “change this” link. In the third mock up, this link was in most of the individual widgets. Now, it will point to a specific page that will act as the customization engine. As my design relies on this link, my next mock up will be of that page.

On a more personal note, my underemployment does seem to be drawing to a close, and I will probably be forced to enter just the image mockups of both this page and the “change this” page. I don’t expect this to be a problem, but I do wish I could have had the time to actually create the XHTML shell of the site.

Maybe next time…

The fourth part in a series that should be closing in on at least some sort of a milestone, I think that I’m pretty close to a final design here. Earlier today, I discussed what I’m looking to do with this site, and I feel that this third version serves those purposes quite well. For this discussion, I will speak on what the visual layout doesn’t show.

This design refers back to the second comp I made in that much of the color scheme and content remains unchanged. Of note, the greater emphasis on the news, this is simply the default in this design and the user can set his or her preference.

In order to access the preferences of the page, the user must click on the link at the top of the page (in this instance, it would be “Hello Bill”). That link will put the user at a preferences panel that will enable him to define almost all of the page below the Today label.

Also added was the suggested links element within the “My Places” element. At this stage, I can only suggest that these links be suggested based on other bookmark lists with similiar choices, although the algorithm can be modified, obviously.

Another important feature in this design (as well as the earlier ones) is the prominent featuring of feeds. While they do not act in the direction of enticing people to set bbc.co.uk as the homepage, they do assist a “power user” without harming a user that has absolutely no idea what an RSS feed is.

Within the “My BBC” section, this design allows for the user to modify and order the news categories. As I mentioned earlier, any of these categories can supercede the news that is found outside of the “My BBC” block.

Also, in remembering the “glass” roots, section headings that are clicked more get slightly larger, giving an interesting perspective of a reverse-breadcrumb type of navigation. This preference could be expanded into overall visits by everyone, bringing in the “wisdom of crowds.”

On a more personal note, this design really takes what I liked about the second design and pushed it in better directions. I think the site becomes more useful with addition of the news section breaking out. A little more spit and polish and I think I have an actual entry that I can be proud of.

With regards to my as-of-yet unentered reboot:bbc entry, I want to discuss where I’m coming from on a design. My whole design can be viewed as a response to the change in focus brought up by the Beeb themselves.

The overall stated goal is to incorporate personalization and wisdom of crowds to the current BBC homepage. Unfortunately, the homepage can really only scratch the surface of this sort of change. What I am trying to do is bring in the content that they want while maintaining what it means to be the BBC homepage.

My first comp threw everything out. Really none of the standard design elements persisted in the design, which is good for a first comp, but usually not as good for a final product. A final product has users that have used the product it is replacing for (in this case) years. A site of the magnitude of the BBC is not meant to have major changes in its workflow. In the end, any true redesign will be more focused on upgrading technology and incorporating content as opposed to “going back to the drawing board” as they have suggested.

That said, the contest itself has told us to throw out the baby, bath, and bathwater. And we must respond in kind.

I focused (in both comps so far) as much on user-created as BBC-created content. My design should not represent an end-point of the incorporation of technology but a front face. I must admit to a degree of confusion with regards to some of the BBC’s stated goals. For example, by enabling content creation, does the BBC expect to begin hosting blogs, social bookmarks, pictures, movies, and possibly even email? The resources to handle all of that is not easy to come by. But, hey, if they do want to move in that direction, please allow me to volunteer for a position supporting that infrastructure. I’ve always wanted to move to the UK.

Snarking aside, my design does not pull in the large amount of video content that the BBC already has, nevermind the video content they are looking to add. There is one simple reason for this: this sort of material does not belong on the front page. The front page is what people set as their homepage in the browsers, both at home and work. The last thing an employee will want is some video blaring through his speakers when he shows up in the morning. I know I didn’t when Apple put the new ads on their homepage.

Also, a nice feature that I haven’t included (at least not yet), would be some sort of suggestion engine. I would like the homepage to present me with links throughout the day that it would expect me to find interesting. This adaptive capability would probably link in with the social bookmarking feature I have shown, just taking it a little further.

As a purely visual critique on the current homepage, I don’t like all of the blue. This preference drove my decision to step away from it with the second comp. Knowing my own tastes, I will probably continue that spiral away, but it shouldn’t take away from the other goals in the design. Those are most important.

And now for the second part in our series “Doesn’t Bill Have Anything Better To Do?”

Without further ado, I present to you comp #2:

With this style, I moved away from the wonderful rounded corners that have given me such warm and fuzzy feelings with the first comp. Of note, I did decide on keeping the “From Us / From You” labeling. The more I searched my soul, the more I realized it was appropriate for the goal.

This design also takes the “Where I Live” from the current site and turns it into “My BBC.” Also in this area is a social bookmarking system.

By reincorporating the advert, more flexibility is given to the design. I chose to elevate the TV and Radio fields due simply to their relation to the banner. This design would change those items depending on what is in the banner space.

By moving the sidebar into the middle (sort of negates the label, huh?), I am using it as a definitive design element. It manages to serve multiple services while maintaining my goal resolution of 800×600.

I like this design worlds better than my first comp, thus making the baseline from now on. In fact, the next may be the final comp, just a slightly tweak version of this.

Let me know what you think.