Lately, I’ve been seeing references to the term ‘web 3.0′ in various internet-related magazine articles, blogs, and even in emails sent by various web design and SEO companies. It occurred to me that it seemed only yesterday when the term ‘web 2.o’ was being bandied about. Of course, these articles and blogs especially the emails were quick to point out that the term did not refer to any kind of a web standard, or an actual revision of any kind . . . right before treating it like it actually was. ‘Web 2-0′ is actually a term referring to the web’s natural evolution into a more interactive type of internet, and I’m fine with that, but with the latest flurry of emails, all proclaiming that I need to have my website be ready for ‘web 3.0′, I had to ask, “Do I really need it?” and more importantly, “does anyone?”
In looking over the sites advertised by the web design companies behind the emails, and also the term itself, I saw plenty of things that made websites louder, embedded video, eye-gouging animations, and so-called ‘life-like 3-d avatars’, but I didn’t see much, if anything, that made them better. After all, it was only a short time ago,back in the ‘web 1.0′ days (oooo, can we really think back 15 years? I think so), that such things were derided by ’serious’ web designers, who preferred good design over the flash and trash. Overuse of animation, and music or sound effects playing in the background, were all considered novice mistakes in design, and to be avoided. Then, the design companies declared the age of ‘web 2.0′ and promised that we would be left behind and out in the cold if we weren’t tied into Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, and every other soundbite-length social media or microblogging site, or if we didn’t have splashy Flash animations covering our pages. To some extent, I can see the reasoning in that; more exposure means more possible visitors to your site, which means more possible customers, but do we really need proprietary flash animations on our pages? Does every site need streaming video? Well, if you listen to the web design companies, they’ll tell you that if you don’t have those things, then your site will no longer be relevant in the ‘web 3.0′ world. What I think, however, is that they tell you this in order for them to stay relevant. After all, what is better than having your customers pay you to design their site? Answer: having them pay you to do it over and over again ever couple of years.
Otherwise, those companies would have to, like, develop better business models, or something.
I don’t know about you, but I know I don’t want some obnoxious 3-d avatar springing onto the first page I visit in the morning while I drink my morning coffee. To me, such a tactic screams of ‘amateur’, and is just downright annoying as all get out. How can such an addition benefit such a site as mine, where the allure is in the artwork? Simple; it can’t. All it can do, is take up valuable web real estate (possibly blocking the navigation bar in the process) and yammer at me while I search frantically for a way to make it go away.
So, in conclusion, I have to say that while the evolution of the web is generally a good thing, those of us running web sites have to be very careful in choosing which bells and whistles to include on our pages. Remember, all the flash and trash in the world cannot compare to clear, concise, and clever design. We need to remember that the web is an end to a means, and not the means itself. We also need to remember that quality of service and product, will always be more important than advertising, even in this world of planned obsolescence and marketing gone mad.
