Comments on: no-jargon 10-point pledge

By: PornMoviesI

PornMoviesI — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 09:15:10 +0000

By: dose · OK, let’s kill web2.0

dose · OK, let’s kill web2.0 — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:34:30 +0000

[…] had a discussion with Steve about the term web2.0, and whether or not it is useful. Steve wants it […]

By: dose · no-stumbling 10-point pledge

dose · no-stumbling 10-point pledge — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:43:06 +0000

[…] posted my 10-point no-jargon pledge a while ago, regarding things I promised never to write. After watching some of the vids of me at […]

By: Hugh

Hugh — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:07:15 +0000

Now on the list:
* irregardless (that goes along with “commence to begin”_

By: mir

mir — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:17:45 +0000

oops I meant ‘with regard to’ only once.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:17:08 +0000

if it makes you feel better i use web2.0 with a cringe and usually write it “web2.0y (whatever that means).” but the version numbers are important and useful. 1.0=passive; 2.0=active.

there is a non-branded word for kleenex, and for q-tip. I am not aware of an immediately understood term ot replace web2.0. Maybe “participatory web” but that looks & sounds like crap. Jargon has it’s uses.

By: mir

mir — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:17:05 +0000

I hate it when people say “irregardless” it means nothing nothing at all.

At a stretch it means ‘with regard regard to’ framed as a double negative.

nice new blog Hugh, this lay-out is sweet business indeed

By: Steven Mansour

Steven Mansour — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:46:03 +0000

Hugh, I asked:

“When exactly were you “able to begin participating in the web, without any technical knowledge”?”

And you answered:

easy: free hosted blogging. previously:
- i did not know how to set up a web site
- i did not want to have to learn how to set up a web site
- i did not want to pay money for a web site i didn’t know how to set up

We’re in agreement over this. You didn’t answer “When Web 2.0 started”, but rather “free hosted blogging”. That was the catalyst for you. When companies started to offer free, managed blogging solutions, that’s when the barrier to entry disappeared for you. For others, maybe it was when podcasting was made easy by the last major release of Garageband. For others still, perhaps it was when Wikipedia saw the light of day.

My curiosity has nothing to do with how or when larger masses of users started reading / writing to the web, but rather how you came to use the term “Web 2.0″ as a label for this evolution.

To me, it’s the same thing as hearing someone ask for a “Kleenex” when they really want a “tissue”, reading about someone stabbing themselves in the brain with a “Q-tip” when all we really know was that it was a “cotton swab”, or watching someone “use Powerpoint” when it’s really just a presentation.

“Web 2.0″ is a brand to me, nothing more. And yes, I’m very aware that I’m part of a tiny little minority.

Oh, and Ella - I’m no coder. I’d almost take offense to that, if it weren’t coming from someone who hangs around the kind of people who say things like “commence to start”. (kidding!) :p

By: Hugh

Hugh — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:49:58 +0000

added to the list:
* obligate
* long tail
* bleeding edge

“commence to start” i have not heard, but is a travesty.

By: Ella

Ella — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:00:30 +0000

Aw, I kind of like ‘paradigm’. My personal least fave is ‘commence to start’. And I’ve never understood why people feel obliged to use the word ‘obligate’. ‘Bleeding edge’ (cutting edge wasn’t good enough?) is just annoying, and ‘long tail’ is overused and most people overusing it don’t really know what it means.
And as another non-techie web junkie, I totally agree about how much more accessible things are now, I only hope that the trend continues. But I wouldn’t expect someone who replaced OSX with Linux to be fully sympathetic to the plight of the non-coder computer user ;) (kidding)