Participation Literacy

I have tried to be consistent when it comes to the word service, but why call these things services when others might use the word software or application when talking about the same thing? The word application (or application software) usually stands for software operating on top of an operating system such as Linux, Windows or Mac OS X. Examples of applications are Word, Itunes and Photoshop. The operating system is like a mediator between the hardware and the application. Both the operating system and applications are software. Software is a very general word. Everything you cannot touch in a computer is software.

Following this line of argument, Delicious, Flickr and the other Web 2.0 services outlined above are software. You might also call them applications. They are applications to the server software and the Web browser. The Web browser is in its turn an application to the client computer’s operating system.

If we are taking the user perspective, the Web 2.0 software application is understood as a service. You do not need to install it somewhere. As an end user you just have to create an account, perhaps pay a fee, and start to use it.

If all application software, besides the Web browser, were services, you would probably have more to chose from when it comes to operating systems and Web browsers. A Web service like Delicious or Flickr only need a browser environment, which follows certain standards. The hardware and operating system could be whatever as long as they can harbour the Web browser.

What do these services have in common? One of the most important Web 2.0 features is an ajaxian interface. Some of these applications have Ajax driven interfaces or similar, but not all of them. Flock Web browser, for example, is not even a Web service. It is a container environment for Web services. I do not even think Ajax is important for Web 2.0. Not Ajax in itself. Lightweight smooth and fast interfaces are essential, but Ajax is only the start of this development. Others will follow.

One feature every service has in common is connectivity. Web 2.0 services are like junctions building a net of services where the sum is bigger than the parts. This is actually a self-evident phenomenon. A native Web service is different from a PC application. For a Native Web service, connectivity is, or should be, as self-evident as a PC application’s connection to the operating system. The most dramatic connectivity is perhaps performed by coComment. CoComment functions like a potential layer of cobweb covering the Web. Every time someone makes a comment on a blogpost and calls coComment to suck up the comment, the cobweb of voices thickens. You might think a word processor service like Writely does not have a need for connection. This is wrong. Writely assists you in creating documents and documents are seldom created to be put in a drawer. Documents want to be read and in Writely it is possible to connect people to work together in the document – this in itself is not new. Writely also has an API, which other services can use to connect. One example is the Web based desktop environment Netvibes, which lets you put Writely on a personal Netvibes desktop. Another example is the connection to blog software. You can write your blog post in Writely and send it to common blog services. One of the most important features for a Web 2.0 service is its openness, that it is open for connection to services. Another important feature, the most important from my perspective, is the connection of people.

One of the main points of Web 2.0 services is to make people participate. The participation does not need to be in a CI machine, it might as well be collaboration in documents. Some kinds of services might not be a natural place for collective intelligence – or you might not see the possibilities at this early stage of development. An interesting point though is the high percentage of these services that are good environments for participation.