Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [decentralization] TTWW or T2W2 or 2W2 or 2WW?

Expand Messages
  • Julian Bond
    In article , Gregory Alan Bolcer writes ... We shouldn t forget the oldest uses of the internet, namely
    Message 1 of 18 , Jan 1, 2001
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      In article <3A4F7193.679D90C7@...>, Gregory Alan Bolcer
      <gbolcer@...> writes
      >The Web is so much more than HTML now & we should take
      >advantage of it. Bill Joy's 6 Webs[1] is actually an
      >interesting breakdown of "meta" uses of the Web; most people's vision
      >of the Web inlcudes XML/XHTML/XSL and the every growing body
      >of MIME types. His webs are:
      >
      > o The browser Web
      > o The Interactive Entertainment Web
      > o The Carry-Along Consmer Device Web
      > o The Voice Web
      > o The E-business Web - no human-in-the-loop
      > o The Embedded Web - no human either.

      We shouldn't forget the oldest uses of the internet, namely Usenet and
      email mailing lists (such as this one). These are already read-write,
      many to many systems.

      Actually this discussion reminds me of an idea I had years ago in the
      early days of the WWW. I wanted to have a frame with a thick border for
      the browser containing lots of useful things like
      - Discussion forum/Noticeboard about this page
      - List of links
      - Ratings for this page
      - Lists of pages that reference this page
      - People currently viewing this page
      - The top 10 pages people typically went to from this page

      and so on. Unfortunately the security restrictions on cross frame and
      cross site javascript mean that it has to be done in real software and
      properly belongs in the browser. Somebody (I forget) did it as an Active
      X extension to IE4 but it never really took off. Maybe MS will make it
      happen as part of .Net. ICQ's ICQSurf is also going down this route. My
      vision was of the web as a jungle where the actions of browsing
      developed walkways and paths that got bigger as more people took them
      and as people left signposts behind.

      --
      Julian Bond <julian@...>
      http://www.netmarketseurope.com "How B2B should be"
      Tel: +44 (0)20 7420 4363
      "So many words, so little time"
    • Gregory Alan Bolcer
      Okay, so here s state of the art below: ... egroups.com, takeitoffline.com, & spyonit.com ... NetObjects link dump. ... thirdvoice.com ... altavista.com:
      Message 2 of 18 , Jan 1, 2001
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Okay, so here's state of the art below:

        Julian Bond wrote:

        > Actually this discussion reminds me of an idea I had years ago in the
        > early days of the WWW. I wanted to have a frame with a thick border for
        > the browser containing lots of useful things like
        > - Discussion forum/Noticeboard about this page
        egroups.com, takeitoffline.com, & spyonit.com

        > - List of links
        NetObjects link dump.

        > - Ratings for this page
        thirdvoice.com

        > - Lists of pages that reference this page
        altavista.com: +url:http:// or Google Advanced Search

        > - People currently viewing this page
        Web Crossing's bboard has a "Who's Here" list of people.

        > - The top 10 pages people typically went to from this page
        Doubleclick.com? 8-)

        So, someone just needs to tie them all together
        into a client-side SOAP&Serve display. I think at
        least a couple of these things are listed on xmethods.

        Greg

        > and so on. Unfortunately the security restrictions on cross frame and
        > cross site javascript mean that it has to be done in real software and
        > properly belongs in the browser. Somebody (I forget) did it as an Active
        > X extension to IE4 but it never really took off. Maybe MS will make it
        > happen as part of .Net. ICQ's ICQSurf is also going down this route. My
        > vision was of the web as a jungle where the actions of browsing
        > developed walkways and paths that got bigger as more people took them
        > and as people left signposts behind.
        >
      • rscoble@fawcette.com
        ... Why does the world need more acronyms? To me, the two way Internet is already here. I have running on my home computer: An FTP server. An HTTP server. A
        Message 3 of 18 , Jan 1, 2001
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          > TTWW or T2W2 or 2W2 or 2WW
          > Dave
          > PS: I like #3.

          Why does the world need more acronyms?

          To me, the two way Internet is already here.

          I have running on my home computer:

          An FTP server.
          An HTTP server.
          A streaming media server.

          I have running various other places:

          A news server.
          A Manila page.
          An MSN Community or two.
          A chat server.
          A threaded-discussion server.
          A Groove session or two.
          An email client or two.
          A NetMeeting server.
          etc.

          So for +me+ the Interactive Internet is already here.

          But, I'm a geek.

          I think what we are all trying to do is make the above Accessible
          by "normal humans."

          Are "normal humans" turned on by acronyms? I don't think so.

          We need to talk in language that mom and dad can understand.

          Course, maybe we don't want mom and dad and other normal humans to
          participate in our Interactive Internet?

          So, what am I suggesting? I don't know, but acronyms keep this sorta
          a secret society.

          I'm all about empowering normal humans with this stuff.

          Put it another way, what's more likely to get someone like George
          Bush to use our Interactive Internet?

          Calling it 2W2 or something like "Interactive Internet?"

          Course, the venture capitalists don't like it when you start using
          ClueTrain principles, do they?

          But, I don't really care either way. Choose a name and then let's get
          back to work.

          :-)

          And, happy new years!

          OK, if you really wanna use an acronym, ISquared sounds good to me.

          Robert Scoble
        • Jack Foster
          I like just plain ole 2way as in (FreeWay) (TheWay) and (Out, Way) Jack ... wondered what ... adjective (like P2P), rather than a noun.
          Message 4 of 18 , Jan 1, 2001
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            I like just plain ole'
            2way
            as in (FreeWay) (TheWay) and (Out, Way)
            Jack

            --- In decentralization@egroups.com, Doc Searls <doc@s...>
            wrote:
            > >I'm playing with acronyms for The Two-Way-Web and
            wondered what
            > >y'all thought of these candidates..
            > >
            > > TTWW or T2W2 or 2W2 or 2WW
            > >Dave
            > >PS: I like #3.
            >
            > I like 2W. Less acronymic, more descriptive. Works as an
            adjective (like P2P), rather than a noun.
            > Up 2U, of course...
            > doc
          • Dave Reynolds
            ... Have you seen AntWorld? http://aplab.rutgers.edu/ant/ This has the same philosophy, though only actually applies to structured searches ( quests ) rather
            Message 5 of 18 , Jan 2, 2001
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              > My
              > vision was of the web as a jungle where the actions of browsing
              > developed walkways and paths that got bigger as more people took them
              > and as people left signposts behind.
              >

              Have you seen AntWorld?
              http://aplab.rutgers.edu/ant/
              This has the same philosophy, though only actually applies to structured
              searches ("quests") rather than random browsing.

              Dave Reynolds, HP Labs
            • Joshua Allen
              ... Yeah, different people could see different scopes here. The way I see it, we could have said the same thing about the web -- we already had gopher, ftp
              Message 6 of 18 , Jan 2, 2001
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                > To me, the two way Internet is already here.

                Yeah, different people could see different scopes here. The way I
                see it, we could have said the same thing about the web -- we already
                had gopher, ftp servers, etc. All mosaic was *really*, was a
                terminal emulator (and a *static* one at that!). Of course the HTML
                terminal emulator codes allowed more powerful formatting than VT-320,
                but you get my point.

                So anyway, when we talk about two-way web, I always think of "web" as
                meaning the shared ubiquitous terminal emulator (web browser) that we
                have *and* the Internet. The really important thing is the web
                browser, since it is the users' primary interface into the Internet.
                It is always possible to imagine the day (maybe soon) when DNS will
                be replaced by something else, a new grand-unifying-interface will
                replace web browsers, and so on -- but for now the web browser *is*
                the web to most people.

                Also as far as most people are concerned, the web browser may offer
                alot more control and choice than TV, but it is still primarily a one-
                way tool. I thik it makes sense to restrict the scope of "two-way-
                web" to just the user expeirnce that "typical" users have while
                browsing the web. Even that is pretty broad, but you can lump
                together some cool developments this way:
                * places like babycenter.com, amazon.com, etc. allow customers to
                add their product reviews directly to a product page
                * MSDN lets you "rate this article" so future viewers will know
                what the general public thought
                * All of the Manila sites let you "edit this page" to comment on
                articles.

                You could ask, "what's the benefit of coming up with a new term to
                lump together all of the instances of people making their pages more
                open to participation from the users?" But the reason I think it
                makes sense is particularly because the web is still so one-way.
                There are a whole pile of ways that users *want* to be able to
                interact with our web pages (and they have been asking for these
                things for years) and we still don't deliver them. Looking at "the
                two way web" as something particular helps us keep people focused on
                building these hooks for the users. I mean, who wants a "one way
                web"? The very phrase is a bit of a prod to motivate people in the
                direction of more interaction.

                Frankly, I think focus on this is long overdue, and if you just
                brainstorm on the idea of "two way web" for 30 minutes, you are bound
                to come up with a ton of awesome ideas that you wonder "why hasn't
                someone done this already?". Asking other users to brainstorm with
                you will get even more good ideas. We spent the last decade hyping
                up the possibilities of building a volunteer economy where coders
                wrote free software that was a feature ripoff of existing commercial
                software. We have alot of people busy trying to figure out how to
                reinvent what we have and make it more "free", while there are not
                enough people looking ahead at the things that we can do now that
                we've got web browsers everywhere. Waste of talent, IMO.
              • Joshua Allen
                ... Maybe one difference would be that P2P has no qualms with throwing out the web part entirely and using different protocols (as freenet, napster, etc.
                Message 7 of 18 , Jan 2, 2001
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Also, imho, if you believe that the P in P2P is people, then 2W2
                  > and P2P are the same thing.

                  Maybe one difference would be that P2P has no qualms with throwing
                  out the "web" part entirely and using different protocols (as
                  freenet, napster, etc. did). Perhaps 2W2 is P2P through a web-
                  browser?

                  Incidentally, the similarity of motivations between P2P and 2W2 is
                  why I like the acronym "2W2". In the case of "P2P", it is easy to
                  picture the secong "P" being flipped about horizontally and little
                  smiley faces put on each P so it looks like two people looking at
                  each other. Even ignoring the opportunities for for cute icons, both
                  2W2 and P2P *look* like they represent two sides of something, with
                  both sides being equal peers. "2W2" just "feels" balanced; nothing
                  lop-sided about it.
                • Dave Winer
                  Yes sir, that s exactly why I liked 2W2. But 2WW is winning out in the survey. What to do? Decisions decisions. ;- Dave ... From: Joshua Allen
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jan 2, 2001
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yes sir, that's exactly why I liked 2W2. But 2WW is winning out in the
                    survey. What to do? Decisions decisions. ;-> Dave


                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Joshua Allen" <allenjs@...>
                    To: <decentralization@egroups.com>
                    Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 2:35 PM
                    Subject: [decentralization] Re: TTWW or T2W2 or 2W2 or 2WW?


                    > > Also, imho, if you believe that the P in P2P is people, then 2W2
                    > > and P2P are the same thing.
                    >
                    > Maybe one difference would be that P2P has no qualms with throwing
                    > out the "web" part entirely and using different protocols (as
                    > freenet, napster, etc. did). Perhaps 2W2 is P2P through a web-
                    > browser?
                    >
                    > Incidentally, the similarity of motivations between P2P and 2W2 is
                    > why I like the acronym "2W2". In the case of "P2P", it is easy to
                    > picture the secong "P" being flipped about horizontally and little
                    > smiley faces put on each P so it looks like two people looking at
                    > each other. Even ignoring the opportunities for for cute icons, both
                    > 2W2 and P2P *look* like they represent two sides of something, with
                    > both sides being equal peers. "2W2" just "feels" balanced; nothing
                    > lop-sided about it.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.