why does the web 2.0 stuff seem to be different looking and logos and stuff - its because you have to make it attractive, and clean as possible

I think, this is correct for any kind of visual design; not a web 2.0 specific requirement.

glenngould wrote:

I think, this is correct for any kind of visual design; not a web 2.0 specific requirement.

That's why your designs tend to rock so much.

Some of you may find this interesting as well. I've heard it's well worth the read if you have the time. I haven't yet, though (Josh's fault... all Josh's fault).

Young Twig wrote:

These are decent examples.

This kind of linking is sooo WEB 2.0

kosta wrote:

This kind of linking is sooo WEB 2.0

Like a tag cloud? I need to make it all different sizes.

MissLee wrote:

While I know the web 2.0 thing has actual technical parameters, it reminds me of the uber-trendy as they guzzle their double decaf lattes and whisper 'brown is the new black' to one another.

just spit my latte all over the computer... lol

well, I would have if I'd been drinking one

that one's going to stick with me for a while :rofl:

love it Ken.

Lisa

My last post was funny, but this post shows how stupid the who Web 2.0 buzz really is. Based on the following link, I now declare the term "Web 2.0" to be a banned marketing BS buzz phrase that must never be typed in these forums ever again: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060526-6922.html

Trademarking the term "Web 2.0" would be dumb (and O'Reilly and CMP are being rightly skewered if that's what they're after). But I have no problem with trademarking "Web 2.0 Conference" ... I mean, if I wanted to run a tradeshow about consumer electronics, I don't espect to be able to call it the Consumer Electronics Show. Or about game programming I don't expect to be able to call it the Game Developers Conference. Or even Josh's Game Making Conference: A Game Developers Conference. Those examples could be rightfully confused with the larger shows of those names.

Actually, there is no way to trademark "Web 2.0 conference" without also trademarking "Web 2.0". The reason being that the word conference is only a descriptive addition to the origonal phrase.

So you're saying CMP owns the rights to the phrase "game developers" because they own the rights to the phrase "Game Developers Conference" ? That seems like a very flawed system. I mean, that means I technically couldn't write an article about, say, id Software and use the sentence, "But this group of game developers from Texas..." ...

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=qrun5b.2.3
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=qrun5b.2.1
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=qrun5b.2.4

It occurs to me, that you only register trademarks for a specific purpose... in this case, the Game Developers Conference is registered as a service mark for, "Arranging and conducting tradeshows and expositions in the field of computer hardware and software, design, engineering and development of multimedia computer game applications." ... I imagine the "Web 2.0 Conference" would be something similar. The term "Web 2.0" could still be used it any other respect. This seems to be nothing new, unless you want to claim that the term "game developers" is also just marketing BS buzz?

(That said, I do agree that "Web 2.0" is a marketing term, but I also think it actually DOES stand for something and is helpful as a way to define a group of websites, services, and software that share similar characteristics. So I disagree with the "BS" part.)

I also notice that on one of the GDC registrations exists the disclaimer: "NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "CONFERENCE" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN" ... so it would seem there is a way to exclude certain works from the mark.

CMP could include a disclaimer of, "NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "WEB 2.0" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN". I.e., it appears that there is a way to register the entire mark as a whole but not the individual elements.

The problem is you can not claim a trademark for common words just strung together. For instance, I was denied a trademark for EnvironmentalChemistry.com because "environmental" and "chemistry" are descriptive dictionary words and ".com" simply infers an address and addresses can not be trademarked. Based on the same logic the USPTO used to reject my trademark application, CMP should have been rejected in any trademark applications for "game developer's conference". O'Reily might get away with trademarking "Web 2.0" but should be rejected a trademark for "web 2.0 conference" if "web 2.0" is to be considered non-trademarkable.

Likewise, Microsoft's trademark on "windows" should never have been approved and in fact has been greatly limited in the recent years.

Hmm, well, it sounds like the problem lies with the USPTO then. :/

I can't vouch for this as I didn't write it, but it could be of use to designers here since "What is Web 2.0 design?" seems to be a fairly common question:

http://www.webdesignfromscratch.com/web-2.0-design-style-guide.cfm

The article refers mainly to webpage design, but it also discusses a little about logo design. A very good read with a clear and precise style.
Thanks for the link, Bleys !

hello....kinda late in on the discussion, someone posted this over a designoutpost....:)
web 2.0 explained..
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/web-20-explodes-mindexpanding-video-shows-whos-teaching-who-234575.php

Hmmm Web 2.0 style is new to me. Maybe in my opinion Web 2.0 styles relies on using some big icons, some shiny designs, and further more it uses a table less design. For which I might want to try them someday hehehe.

Thanks for the links guys..Nice discussions.

something shiny,glossy,something to do with reflections,friendly colors.