5. “Gen Y is taking over. The generation of young
adults that’s composed of the children of Boomers,
Generation Jones, and even some Gen X'ers, is the
biggest generation since the Baby Boomers and
three times the size of Gen X. As the Boomers fade
into retirement and Gen Y takes root in the
workplace, we’re going to see some big changes
ahead...”
ReadWriteWeb, 15 May 2008
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/why_gen_y_is_going_to_change_the_web.php
6. “Gen Y is taking over. The generation of young
adults that’s composed of the children of Boomers,
Generation Jones, and even some Gen X'ers, is the
biggest generation since the Baby Boomers and
three times the size of Gen X. As the Boomers fade
into retirement and Gen Y takes root in the
workplace, we’re going to see some big changes
ahead...”
ReadWriteWeb, 15 May 2008
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/why_gen_y_is_going_to_change_the_web.php
7. 1964-1979
▪
Generation X is the generation generally defined as those born after
the baby boom ended, extending from around 1960 to the late
1970s. They were the first generation with widespread access to
television during their formative years.
1980-1994
▪
Generation Y is also known as Generation Next or the Millennials.
Gen Y spans from the late 1970s to the early 1990s. This generation
will probably be largely defined by the spread of portable media
devices and being “always connected”. The formative years of this
generation saw the advent of personal computers and home video
gaming systems.
1995-present
▪
Generation Z, has become the common name for the generation
that will follow the Millennials, but also has been called "Generation
V" (for virtual), "Generation C" (for community, content or cell
phone)... the "Internet Generation", and "Gen @." Generation Z are
very young but active consumers, and very connected, being born
into a world of digital technology...
Source: different revisions of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generations
8.
9. The myth: is it really only
teenagers who “get it”?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moirabot/323462018/
Thesis 2
(but if you are here, you are probably interested)
These definitions have changed since the last time I looked at Wikipedia - dates and context keep shifting!
One of the biggest advantages of being here in person - socialising
Meet new people
Catch up with friends
Humans are a fundamentally social species
Gone from the days of static content to dynamic, real-time editable content
Google Wave - redesigned email (actually smart real-time doc collaboration with inbuilt IM etc using web technologies)
With all of those emerging trends, we’re seeing that people want to truly feel connected and expressive
http://flickr.com/photos/shawdm/820926627/
(NB this is by Darren Shaw from IBM Hursley – a great shot of the Great Hall of the British Museum)
“Web 2.0 is a cunning moniker. As Danny pointed out, it’s pretty hard to find a concrete definition of what it actually is. Some think it’s about AJAX or cool applications such as Flickr and Google Maps. Others believe that it’s about web services and that finally all those specs are going to be used.
Here’s my take on it: Web 2.0 is an attitude not a technology. It’s about enabling and encouraging participation through open applications and services. By open I mean technically open with appropriate APIs but also, more importantly, socially open, with rights granted to use the content in new and exciting contexts. Of course the web has always been about participation, and would be nothing without it. It’s single greatest achievement, the networked hyperlink, encouraged participation from the start. Somehow, through the late nineties, the web lost contact with its roots and selfish interests took hold. This is why I think the Web 2.0 label is cunning: semantically it links us back to that original web and the ideals it championed, but at the same time it implies regeneration with a new version. Technology has moved on and it’s important that the social face of the web keeps pace.
Web 2.0 isn’t the Semantic Web. Some might say it’s the semantic web (lower case) or that it’s a stepping stone to the Semantic Web. I don’t hold either of those views. I believe that the Semantic Web is actually a part of Web 2.0 which is to say not only that Web 2.0 is more important than the Semantic Web but that Web 2.0 requires the Semantic Web. For Web 2.0 to function as a social enabler it requires remixable available via accessible APIs. XML is hailed as the lingua franca of web applications but, as I’ve written before, XML isn’t enough and I think the RDF model is necessary to provide readliy remixable data. Just think smushing. I’m in the minority though, most archetypical Web 2.0 applications are producing XML in incompatible dialects but I hope to demonstrate that there is real value buried behind RDF/XML and with the current activity around Sparql as a query language it’s going to be easier than ever to access all that data in a uniform manner.”
http://flickr.com/photos/shawdm/820926627/
(NB this is by Darren Shaw from IBM Hursley – a great shot of the Great Hall of the British Museum)
“Web 2.0 is a cunning moniker. As Danny pointed out, it’s pretty hard to find a concrete definition of what it actually is. Some think it’s about AJAX or cool applications such as Flickr and Google Maps. Others believe that it’s about web services and that finally all those specs are going to be used.
Here’s my take on it: Web 2.0 is an attitude not a technology. It’s about enabling and encouraging participation through open applications and services. By open I mean technically open with appropriate APIs but also, more importantly, socially open, with rights granted to use the content in new and exciting contexts. Of course the web has always been about participation, and would be nothing without it. It’s single greatest achievement, the networked hyperlink, encouraged participation from the start. Somehow, through the late nineties, the web lost contact with its roots and selfish interests took hold. This is why I think the Web 2.0 label is cunning: semantically it links us back to that original web and the ideals it championed, but at the same time it implies regeneration with a new version. Technology has moved on and it’s important that the social face of the web keeps pace.
Web 2.0 isn’t the Semantic Web. Some might say it’s the semantic web (lower case) or that it’s a stepping stone to the Semantic Web. I don’t hold either of those views. I believe that the Semantic Web is actually a part of Web 2.0 which is to say not only that Web 2.0 is more important than the Semantic Web but that Web 2.0 requires the Semantic Web. For Web 2.0 to function as a social enabler it requires remixable available via accessible APIs. XML is hailed as the lingua franca of web applications but, as I’ve written before, XML isn’t enough and I think the RDF model is necessary to provide readliy remixable data. Just think smushing. I’m in the minority though, most archetypical Web 2.0 applications are producing XML in incompatible dialects but I hope to demonstrate that there is real value buried behind RDF/XML and with the current activity around Sparql as a query language it’s going to be easier than ever to access all that data in a uniform manner.”
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/cO7x6uaPWaFY5DxO8vbHfw
As technology has made it easier to be social, humans have been more social
The early adopters and edge cases have always been there
(to prove this you would need a case study of identical twins! - Pawel)
