R U Sick of Web 2.0

[Toad_1]

Are you as sick of Web 2.0 as I am?

When taken to far everything will be 2.0 (here) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/yay2dot0logoparody/interesting/)

[morea]

ooh, those are lovely. :D

[Toad_1]

Sheesh... (http://www.fontshop.com/fontfeed/archives/the-logos-of-web-20/)

[Toad_1]

Ack... (http://enthree.com/files/random/web2logos/)

[morea]

make it stop!

http://i14.tinypic.com/4qd4l0o.gif

[Toad_1]

Q: Maybe I am just stupid, but what exactly makes this "2.0"? A logo is a logo is a logo.


A: shiny + adding an 'r' (flickr, etc) + AJAX - original idea = web 2.0

[Toad_1]

"Heres a 5 step plan to creating your own web 2 logos.
1. Pick a crazy name that no one else will possibly have the .com for. Best to use a word generator. Dont worry if it has nothing whatsoever to do with what your company does.
2. Make sure the text is in Arial or some other basic font and bubble it, remember were going for glossy, the shinier the better.
3. Make sure you only use variations of blue and green…vista style.
4. Always add a reflection, no one will take you seriously without it.
5. Last but not least remember to create a small cute avator before your text, this is essential to make your company really appeal to your customers…oh and make sure its glossy.
Web 2 Logos: Glossy goodness or irratating clones. Find the debate on nurtur.co.uk/naked "

[CkretAjint]

The web 2.0 style is phasing out. Raw files are coming in style now... :)

[budafist]

2. Make sure the text is in Arial or some other basic font and bubble it, remember were going for glossy, the shinier the better.

Arial? More like Arial Rounded.

A clear trend in new identities is the use of soft, rounded typefaces dominated by VAG Rounded (AKA Rundschrift), but also including Helvetica Rounded, Arial Rounded, Bryant, and FF Cocon. All of these lend a modern friendliness to what might otherwise be a cold trademark

[morea]

no, no... the new trend is marbles (http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32854)! :D

[Cyan_Ide]

lol The Famous Amos one is hilarious.

The scary part is in one of the links they had comments and it was overwhelmingly positive. 'Oh, thank you for giving us such valuable information!' *Shudder*

morea: What if we place said mrbles(2.0 beta) on a shiny table?

[morea]

d'oh! If we did that, I think that the universe might implode! :D

[Mynock]

Do I need to dig out my 2.0 Avatar?

[CkretAjint]

Seriously... The new "in web style" will be raw, like the header on this page: http://paulenderson.com/

[morea]

Do I need to dig out my 2.0 Avatar?

only if you add a marble. :p

[Mynock]

Nope, no mable. just shiny goodness.

[cjoe]

Seriously... The new "in web style" will be raw, like the header on this page: http://paulenderson.com/

what do you mean by "raw"?

[CkretAjint]

vector based drawings/art...

[ReneGade2012]

Yeah, I hate that stupid look...(looks at avatar)...oh, right. :p
It's merely a trend that mac made popular with their "aqua" design interface. Must admit, its pleasant to the eyes. But, like anything good it doesn't last. Mostly because it's overdone. Like when you hear a good song, and then everyone loves it too, then you get sick of it because it's on the radio every 15 mins. (Modest Mouse-Float on, lol)

[Patrick Shannon]

Web 2.0 doesn't bother me (as site layout aesthetics as opposed to a graphic style, which really isn't the right definition of it). Just not original anymore.

[SurfPark]

20 years from now this era will be called the "glass logo" era. If the logo doesn't shine...you haven't washed it of its originality enough!

[budafist]

I need a bath. Does that mean I'm original?

[CkretAjint]

My everyday-logo isn't web 2.0. But I did create a web 2.0 version to show people if they really really want to see the style and what I can do with it.

[Drazan]

web 2.0 is more than just the "shiny effect". It originated as the next phase of web techonologies, interactivity and easier user interfaces.

This is more of the Web 2.0 core. (http://en.oreilly.com/webexsf2008/public/content/home)

Any I like shiny when appropriate. As long as the logo also has the black & white, flat color and the last step being the "effect" logo, I believe it works.

Is it going to last? probably for this decade at least. As with McDonalds, Arbys, Domino's Pizza, and many other corporate brands there will be changes in color or definition of the logo. It's inevitable. There are some limits to trends that some overreach.

Jade

[DC1]

While there is more to Web 2.0 - some ideas are just plain asking to be abused, and devolved to the most superficial level.

Web 2.0 is just such an idea. It's ideal for giving the client "exactly what they ask for ...good and hard" billable. Graphic artists can provide just the gloss, gradients and stripes (http://www.stripegenerator.com/) along with the goofy logo.

Some call this branding. I call it business (http://mokolabs.com/2006/11/14/amazon-rips-off-eventful-logo/) cammouflage (http://brandautopsy.typepad.com/brandautopsy/2007/08/the-real-web-20.html).

Web 2.0 out in the wild just devolves into programming cliches, graphic design cliches, and business cliches. It should be regulated by the FDA as a hallucinogen.

Case in point: Under construction, 1.0, bad design. Perpetual beta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_beta), 2.0, hip and happening. When a change of "spin" can take the same general concept and turn it from lame to cool, that's hallucinogenic.

[razuel]

I am sick of 'web 2.0,' but at the same time, I'm sick of everyone automatically considering anything that looks modern to be 2.0.

Glosses, gradients, reflections-- they're all great tools when used correctly and in the right context, but if it's done for the sake of looking 'futuristic,' that's when the problem arises. I think it can be done tastefully and purposefully. It's an effect that can help pop something out or make it look a little more interactive than just a simple 2D design. The reason it's being used so much I think is that it's almost like another dimension.

It's not so much the effects that bother me about 'web 2.0' as much as the mindset behind many designers who use the effects. When people take a name or simple shape, slap a reflection and gradient on it, and try to sell it off as a great icon-- that's the problem. Now, a well-thought-out concept that has meaning, depth, and purpose-- with effects on it, that's not bad.

That being said, it's something that should be used in moderation. In other words, no matter what effect is used, it'd better look good without any effects too.

[ZippyTheWonderMonkey]

hehe, had some extra time this evening to fool around....

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1408/web2point0bt6.jpg

my answer is D

[Corey]

im going to wait for web 3.0 (ha ha?)

[DC1]

3.0? That's where someone makes a mashup of all the 2.0 site generators (http://pinoy-blog.isoftinno.com/2007/10/16/100-web-20-online-generators/), down to the larding up on buzzwords sloganeering (http://emptybottle.org/bullshit/) and cliche stock photos, and makes a random site generator out of them.

I honestly do not know why a single human designer (or programmer) is required to do anything 2.0. The biggest failure of Web 2.0 I can see is nobody figured out you put all the cliches together and eliminate the humans.

Apparently that recognition is the only thing left to put into Web 3.0. I would get a kick from hearing about an entire "social" network, made up of nothing but scraper/spambots vying to game Google. Seems like the very flowering of 2.0 culture.