People have always loved to put a label on things and stick them in boxes
People also love to come up with cool NEW labels for new things, and stick those in boxes too.
It’s nice, it’s neat, it fits, and allows us to cope with uncomfortable or new ideas. Plus, if you’re the person who “coins” the label in the first place, and it well, sticks, you get the prestige of having named the next big thing. Cool, eh?
At the moment that’s what’s happening as people try to get their heads around the next evolution of online technologies. Whether you’re calling it Web 3.0, Web Squared, or The Semantic Web (See what I did there? Semantics, Semantic Web? Annnyway, moving along…) the idea is that a bunch of new technologies and standards are emerging that will, we hope, change the way we do things.
Again. Just like Web 2.0.
Please, don’t get me wrong. Progress is great, better understanding, better resources, context — these are all great things, and they’re all things that “Web 3.0″ is probably going to offer us.
But here’s the thing:
A large amount of people still have -absolutely- no idea what Web 2.0 means. Very few people have even heard of Web 3.0 (or whatever you want to call it). In order to decipher the geek speak, people need a frame of reference to their world, and better yet, they need to know the benefits. They need to know what it will do for them.
A name like “Web 3.0″ or “The Semantic Web” doesn’t give anyone any perspective. In fact, it just clouds the issue.
A while back, when I was asked “So what is this Web 2.0 thing, anyway?” my answer was generally something like this, “Oh, that’s just a name that people give all the new social technologies available online. Things like Facebook, twitter. Things that let you share and communicate and collaborate with others.”
If the person I was speaking with was of the less tech-focused persuasion, I’d normally get a smirk, and, “I have a phone, I can do that already.”
Annnd, we’ve just hit the flaw in my explanation. No one cares about that.
What people want to know is how it’ll change things for them, how it’ll make things more like Steve Austin (For everyone reading that’s my age or younger, that’s the 6 million dollar man, “Better, Faster, Stronger”). Unless I can explain, or better yet, demonstrate, how this is of benefit, they’re really not that interested.
There’s no point in telling someone what something does unless you tell them what it can do for them.
Web 3.0 faces challenges just like Web 2.0 did. Coming up with a cool name for it isn’t one of them. Proving value, demonstrating the benefits — that’s where the challenge lies in bringing the idea mainstream.
Frankly, I think we’d almost be better off without the goofy names entirely. They confuse people, and sometimes even make them feel stupid. I mean, really who wants to ask the Internet Marketing guy at the next Lancaster Chamber of Commerce mixer what Web 3.0 is?
