| Home | Register | FAQ | Members List | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
|
27-04-2007, 06:26
|
#4 (permalink) |
|
goober :-)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 519
 |
I can see the nastiness coming here.. so I'll jump in and be a little bit more helpful :P WEB 2.0 ISNT A GRAPHICS STYLE! Its not even a technology or set of technologies before you think that. Its a philosophy and usage paradigm for the internet based around users defining the internet, not companies. Its about user created content, social networking, the sharing of knowledge, preferences etc. Its about the age where people can express their lifestyle on the internet easily, and share that with others. They can find others who have things in common with them, etc etc etc. What it isnt is: Logos with shiny text, soft gradients, drop shadows, reflections, tictacs/leaves etc. Its not AJAX, either. So, no. You probably wont find a book on the topic you are searching for. Not a good one, anyway. |
|
|
27-04-2007, 10:42
|
#7 (permalink) | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 51
|
Quote:
You're absolutely right...i confirm every single word that you said. But what i'd like to underline anyway is that nobody can deny that in this last years a new graphic "style" ( trend, firm, call it whatever you want) has been attached to sites or applications that we define web 2.0.....you know what i mean? That's why i started this topic. Is it just a matter of names or definitions?I think you know that web 2.0 could be everything and nothing. |
|
|
|
|
27-04-2007, 12:19
|
#9 (permalink) |
|
goober :-)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 519
|
The article that oli linked to is actually a pretty good one. It does walk thruogh a lot of the good and bad thats out there at the moment. D.so, I can see your point here... But this is a big problem is that the term "web 2.0" gets thrown around so much, and so often when it is not appropriate, that what it actually means is becoming diluted in the public eye. I think I might write a blog post on this... |
|
|
|
27-04-2007, 14:25
|
#11 (permalink) |
|
Doodler.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,333
|
Aye surprised about how good the link was, covers pretty much everything in a pretty even handed and fair fashion. Don't see why you'd need more than that, anything more intricate would be more of a manual for photoshop or illustrator itself. |
|
|
|
27-04-2007, 16:21
|
#13 (permalink) | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 51
|
Quote:
please let me know where you're gonna post it. I'll be glad to read some feedbacks. |
|
|
|
|
30-04-2007, 04:50
|
#14 (permalink) |
|
goober :-)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 519
|
blog post: Gooberlicious - A blog by David Eglin: Oh Lord, Please Don't Let Web 2.0 Be Misunderstood Might be of some interest to someone... maybe :P lol |
|
|
|
30-04-2007, 15:17
|
#15 (permalink) | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 51
|
Quote:
Good words.... but there's still one thing that i'd like to say about this. I think you're right when you say that there's no "web 2.0 graphic style"....but this is definetely part of it! I think we're just focusing on stupid definitions.... I think the real point is that the web has changed, it could also named "New web" or "Web reloaded" instead of web 2.0. But since the web has also graphics (and these changed too)...I couldn't say so easily that these are two separate things. This "new graphic style" is part of this evolution. |
|
|
|
|
02-05-2007, 10:16
|
#16 (permalink) |
|
goober :-)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 519
|
Is it really, though? For example, the reason for the "wet floor" effect was Apple. They have been doing it for some time now... A fair way before any of this became associated with Web 2.0. What you're talking about is a stylistic trend. In a year or two, web 2.0 sites (or sites based upon their ethos) will still be around, however many of them will probably have been re-styled to be in line with whatever happens to be "cool" at the time. The reason "Web 2.0" got its name is because it is such a huge paradigm shift in the way people use and view the internet. Graphics styles just dont have that effect or impact... And like I said in my blog post... The style doth not make a saite Web 2.0  You can call it the "Web 2.0 look" if you want, but be prepared to be derided by a lot of people who are in the know on these things. I personally prefer to call it "That fluffy, shiny look" :P As for how you accomplish it, well its a mixture of soft gradients, shadows, white borders, glows, rounded rectangles (or "tic-tacs"), "Beta" tag-ons, meaningless slogans, oh... and shiny wet floors Get in touch if you want help on it. My signature sucks.
|
|
|
|
02-05-2007, 11:49
|
#17 (permalink) | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 51
|
Quote:
First of all thanks for your time and your kind replies. I think that we're thinking the same thing but with different names or words Don't you think that anyway this graphic trend is part of this evolution? Basically we can say that web 2.0 it's not an invented "movement" from scratch.There's no technological invention.It has just changed the way WE use internet. It's just something mixed and reinvented...something that has changed its forms but with the same taste. That's what web 2.0 means to me....it's just our counsciousness about the fact the web has changed. I know that there's no way to affirm that a web 2.0 graphic exist....but if we just invert just a word in this way: "web graphics 2.0" it makes more sense don't you think? Basically internet is becoming like a platform...let's say an operating system....and this new graphic trend its GUI. I hope i expressed myself correctly...i'm italian. I'd like to explain my ideas in better words...but that's all i can do |
|
|
|
 |
