Drawar

Does Some Peoples Neglects Grammar1.0?

I don't think you will find any era of the web that didn't neglect good design. In this case most of the time the culprit is the use of AJAX and how it presents information unconventionally for users.

Like any fad, or anything on the web for that matter, there will be good design and bad design. Great design and... designs we care not to think about because they give us nightmares.

Web 2.0 sites especially blogs and social networking/bookmarking sites all are home to aforementioned qualities on a varying scale. And then factoring in people's personal opinions and thoughts, it gets harder to tell what's good.

For example, MySpace has more or less a poor design, and poor functionality, but the entire Web 2.0 thing saves it: the user. So does Web 2.0 even need good design? It helps.

"Web 2.0" can't neglect anything, because it's just an "era" of the Internet. People behind the websites can do a bloody good job of botching things up, though, and that was true for the past, is true for now and will be true in the future.

As others have said: bad design neglects good design. It's really not about Web 2.whatever.

The bad thing about Mr. Nielsen's studies is that sometimes what he's talking about is not evident. In an old study he did about how to write for the web, he worked with John Morkes and together they made a great study about it with a lot of examples and numbers.

The problem with this study that you are criticizing is that he has to measure his words and refrain from mentioning any names.

In the referred article, on the "good web 2.0 sites that don't neglect good design" list, Digg was one of the sites mentioned. Although I do agree that Digg has a very nice, and clean, design, I wouldn't call it a great site in terms of usability.

Let me give an example of how Digg's usability isn't that great.

When you visit their main page, you have a list of articles, a button with the number of votes, and a button to vote for the article.

If you click on the article's title, you go to the referred site. If you click on the button with the number of votes, you go to the Digg page with the comments.

But why is it that when you click on a link on the "Top 10" list, regardless of being on the votes button, or on the article's title, you go to the Digg page instead of the referred article?

So, as you see, what Nielsen is saying is not that "crazy". I also know about a good number of Web 2.0 sites with similar problems, or worse.

A lot of social, or Web 2.0 sites aren't easy to use. You may have become accustomed to them, through trial and error, but then again, if you're reading and participating in 9rules, then you're probably part of the 10% of the users that collaborate.

web2.0 is just a hype in technology and design elements.
My opinion is these reflection effects are totally overused.
Beside that I like these ornament backgrounds on this page.

I think _web2.0_ does some strange things, the content is getting split from 1 page/blog into several web2.0 _tools_ ie hosting your images on flickr instead on your own webspace.

Web 2.0 is just a code word for a bunch of techniques that have recently become popular. Techniques can be used and misused - there are good 2.0 sites and bad 2.0 sites.

Since Web2.0 is so popular, we're seeing swarms of newbie designers thinking that a gradient and AJAX will modernize their design, so we're bound to have lots of bad sites.

Web 2.0 design is more accessible and usable. Usability and accessibility are the most important part of a design.
I wrote an article for designing for web 2.0
Designing for Web 2.0