Das Ende des Web, wie wir es kennen
It is likewise
applicable beyond the Internet itself. Software developers could use this model to expose
the functionality encapsulated in a single class to other software components via a defined
interface throughout the specific environment (connectivity/reachability) in which the
Web 2.0 is a platform used to span connected devices via services, yet it is also much
more. As more and more types of devices are connected to the Internet, the services have to
be more carefully thought out in terms of their architecture, implementation, and
descriptions. The client tier, expressed in client-server models, has been split in this
model to emphasize the two distinct aspects of the client in the model:
• the applications and runtimes, and
• the users that are the ultimate targets of most interaction
Because Web 2.0 is largely about humans as co-collaborators in the success of a process,
the model must reflect their importance and inclusion.
What has already died
The old days of client-server technology have not yet died completely, however no new
business models are likely to be based on such a simple model. Today’s Web recognizes that
users are less loyal and less patient than they were in the 1994-2000 era. When designers
and deployers of web applications allow only part of an engagement to occur on the Web,
they risk losing the majority of the users.
So what specifically has died in the last five years?
1. Simple client-server, request-response architectures:
These simplistic interactions have been partly retired in favor of applications that know
something about the users. Most new interactions use the model above, in which users
(often humans but also other applications) interact with some capability via the Web.
2. Not knowing much about your users:
The first version of the Internet was based on idempotent, largely anonymous user
interactions as noted above. The new reality is that web application users demand a more
engaging and contextual experience. Users are seeking more specialized content. Examples
of the new model include Google’s customizable homepage and Facebook.
3. Non-rich user interfaces:
Boring graphical and utilitarian user interfaces are dead. Many companies have expressed
that the single largest challenge they face is finding a way to graphically present
information to users in a manner they can comprehend. Richer interactive applications are
the key to this demand. These new applications have moved beyond straight HTML to include
Ajax, Flex, Silverlight, Java FX and Flash.
4. Non-open applications:
Web applications without APIs and other interaction mechanisms that people can use are also
on the scrap heap for 2008. Users want more control over their interactions. For example,
Twitter, mostly known for its SMS capabilities, is better described as a device-agnostic
messaging system. Users can choose from a range of consumption and sharing methods,
including the Web, instant messaging, custom clients, alternate web sites, and SMS.
5. Platforms not built in alignment with SOA:
Infrastructures that depend on tight binding and non-repurposable capabilities risk
becoming the next victim of change. Service Oriented Architecture, or
SOA, is an important facet of most new web applications including those that use patterns
such as Software as a Service (SaaS) and Mash-ups among others. Service Oriented
Architecture, in this context, is an architectural paradigm for matching needs and
capabilities amongst disparate domains of ownership. SaaS is software distributed as a
functionality, as opposed to software that has to be installed on every machine.
6. Non-collaborative interactions:
Users want the ability to collaborate and contribute. Applications that are broadcast-only
and lack at least minimal user interactions (for example via comments, tagging, or mashing
up content) are destined for the scrap heap too.
The time for applications burdened with these problems has already passed. Now let’s look
at some things going on today that will die in the next five years.