Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Destacado
Destacado (16)
Más de Andy Piper
Más de Andy Piper (20)
Último
Último (20)
Online DNA - the digital roots of the Millennial generation
- 1. Online DNA The digital roots of the “Millennial” Generation Andy Piper http://andypiper.co.uk
- 2. Those born since 1990 never knew a world without the Internet
- 3. Not everyone born since 1990 is comfortable or “social” online
- 4. Some people born before 1990 have always been “social” online
- 5. “Gen Y is taking over. The generation of young adults that’s composed of the children of Boomers, Generation Jones, and even some Gen X'ers, is the biggest generation since the Baby Boomers and three times the size of Gen X. As the Boomers fade into retirement and Gen Y takes root in the workplace, we’re going to see some big changes ahead...” ReadWriteWeb, 15 May 2008 http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/why_gen_y_is_going_to_change_the_web.php
- 6. “Gen Y is taking over. The generation of young adults that’s composed of the children of Boomers, Generation Jones, and even some Gen X'ers, is the biggest generation since the Baby Boomers and three times the size of Gen X. As the Boomers fade into retirement and Gen Y takes root in the workplace, we’re going to see some big changes ahead...” ReadWriteWeb, 15 May 2008 http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/why_gen_y_is_going_to_change_the_web.php
- 7. 1964-1979 ▪ Generation X is the generation generally defined as those born after the baby boom ended, extending from around 1960 to the late 1970s. They were the first generation with widespread access to television during their formative years. 1980-1994 ▪ Generation Y is also known as Generation Next or the Millennials. Gen Y spans from the late 1970s to the early 1990s. This generation will probably be largely defined by the spread of portable media devices and being “always connected”. The formative years of this generation saw the advent of personal computers and home video gaming systems. 1995-present ▪ Generation Z, has become the common name for the generation that will follow the Millennials, but also has been called "Generation V" (for virtual), "Generation C" (for community, content or cell phone)... the "Internet Generation", and "Gen @." Generation Z are very young but active consumers, and very connected, being born into a world of digital technology... Source: different revisions of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generations
- 9. The myth: is it really only teenagers who “get it”? http://www.flickr.com/photos/moirabot/323462018/
- 10. What is social?
- 11. Humans are social http://flickr.com/photos/dlemieux/124666239/
- 12. Humans are social http://flickr.com/photos/dlemieux/124666239/
- 13. The Web is social
- 14. The Web is social
- 15. Where did it start? http://www.flickr.com/photos/victor_sween/2260564229/
- 16. http://www.flickr.com/photos/mazer73/4008898003/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/freefoto/533626295/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/somewhatfrank/2657896516/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/webbysworld/83822087/
- 17. http://www.flickr.com/photos/mazer73/4008898003/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/freefoto/533626295/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/somewhatfrank/2657896516/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/webbysworld/83822087/
- 18. http://www.flickr.com/photos/mazer73/4008898003/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/freefoto/533626295/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/somewhatfrank/2657896516/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/webbysworld/83822087/
- 19. http://www.flickr.com/photos/mazer73/4008898003/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/freefoto/533626295/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/somewhatfrank/2657896516/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/webbysworld/83822087/
- 20. Humans want to feel connected & to express themselves http://flickr.com/photos/generated/416810/
- 22. People like to be part of vibrant communities and interact socially http://flickr.com/photos/shawdm/820926627/
- 23. Nature versus Nurture? ...or Nurtured Nature? http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/cO7x6uaPWaFY5DxO8vbHfw
- 24. Do “Generations” really matter? What is your online DNA? http://www.flickr.com/photos/stewdean/18717400/
- 25. This may or may not be me... This is me….
Notas del editor
- Web2DNA
- Thesis 1
- Thesis 2 (but if you are here, you are probably interested)
- These definitions have changed since the last time I looked at Wikipedia - dates and context keep shifting!
- One of the biggest advantages of being here in person - socialising Meet new people Catch up with friends Humans are a fundamentally social species
- Gone from the days of static content to dynamic, real-time editable content Google Wave - redesigned email (actually smart real-time doc collaboration with inbuilt IM etc using web technologies)
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/mazer73/4008898003/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/freefoto/533626295/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/somewhatfrank/2657896516/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/webbysworld/83822087/
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/mazer73/4008898003/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/freefoto/533626295/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/somewhatfrank/2657896516/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/webbysworld/83822087/
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/mazer73/4008898003/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/freefoto/533626295/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/somewhatfrank/2657896516/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/webbysworld/83822087/
- With all of those emerging trends, we’re seeing that people want to truly feel connected and expressive
- http://flickr.com/photos/shawdm/820926627/ (NB this is by Darren Shaw from IBM Hursley – a great shot of the Great Hall of the British Museum) “Web 2.0 is a cunning moniker. As Danny pointed out, it’s pretty hard to find a concrete definition of what it actually is. Some think it’s about AJAX or cool applications such as Flickr and Google Maps. Others believe that it’s about web services and that finally all those specs are going to be used. Here’s my take on it: Web 2.0 is an attitude not a technology. It’s about enabling and encouraging participation through open applications and services. By open I mean technically open with appropriate APIs but also, more importantly, socially open, with rights granted to use the content in new and exciting contexts. Of course the web has always been about participation, and would be nothing without it. It’s single greatest achievement, the networked hyperlink, encouraged participation from the start. Somehow, through the late nineties, the web lost contact with its roots and selfish interests took hold. This is why I think the Web 2.0 label is cunning: semantically it links us back to that original web and the ideals it championed, but at the same time it implies regeneration with a new version. Technology has moved on and it’s important that the social face of the web keeps pace. Web 2.0 isn’t the Semantic Web. Some might say it’s the semantic web (lower case) or that it’s a stepping stone to the Semantic Web. I don’t hold either of those views. I believe that the Semantic Web is actually a part of Web 2.0 which is to say not only that Web 2.0 is more important than the Semantic Web but that Web 2.0 requires the Semantic Web. For Web 2.0 to function as a social enabler it requires remixable available via accessible APIs. XML is hailed as the lingua franca of web applications but, as I’ve written before, XML isn’t enough and I think the RDF model is necessary to provide readliy remixable data. Just think smushing. I’m in the minority though, most archetypical Web 2.0 applications are producing XML in incompatible dialects but I hope to demonstrate that there is real value buried behind RDF/XML and with the current activity around Sparql as a query language it’s going to be easier than ever to access all that data in a uniform manner.”
- http://flickr.com/photos/shawdm/820926627/ (NB this is by Darren Shaw from IBM Hursley – a great shot of the Great Hall of the British Museum) “Web 2.0 is a cunning moniker. As Danny pointed out, it’s pretty hard to find a concrete definition of what it actually is. Some think it’s about AJAX or cool applications such as Flickr and Google Maps. Others believe that it’s about web services and that finally all those specs are going to be used. Here’s my take on it: Web 2.0 is an attitude not a technology. It’s about enabling and encouraging participation through open applications and services. By open I mean technically open with appropriate APIs but also, more importantly, socially open, with rights granted to use the content in new and exciting contexts. Of course the web has always been about participation, and would be nothing without it. It’s single greatest achievement, the networked hyperlink, encouraged participation from the start. Somehow, through the late nineties, the web lost contact with its roots and selfish interests took hold. This is why I think the Web 2.0 label is cunning: semantically it links us back to that original web and the ideals it championed, but at the same time it implies regeneration with a new version. Technology has moved on and it’s important that the social face of the web keeps pace. Web 2.0 isn’t the Semantic Web. Some might say it’s the semantic web (lower case) or that it’s a stepping stone to the Semantic Web. I don’t hold either of those views. I believe that the Semantic Web is actually a part of Web 2.0 which is to say not only that Web 2.0 is more important than the Semantic Web but that Web 2.0 requires the Semantic Web. For Web 2.0 to function as a social enabler it requires remixable available via accessible APIs. XML is hailed as the lingua franca of web applications but, as I’ve written before, XML isn’t enough and I think the RDF model is necessary to provide readliy remixable data. Just think smushing. I’m in the minority though, most archetypical Web 2.0 applications are producing XML in incompatible dialects but I hope to demonstrate that there is real value buried behind RDF/XML and with the current activity around Sparql as a query language it’s going to be easier than ever to access all that data in a uniform manner.”
- http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/cO7x6uaPWaFY5DxO8vbHfw As technology has made it easier to be social, humans have been more social The early adopters and edge cases have always been there (to prove this you would need a case study of identical twins! - Pawel)