while reading "Weaving the Web" by Tim Berners-Lee, i was struck by his lamenation of the web as being comprised of users non-interactively using browser-only web software to passively consume content produced by others, in a one-way only relationship.
he seems to advocate the concept that the web should be a place for seemingly constant real time, multi-party, interactive, mutual publishing, reading and editing of dynamic, not staic, web content.
to this end, he seems to suggest that web software should not be arbitrarily broken up into browsers for reading, editors for writing, and ftp software for publishing (not to mention web servers in that regard also!)
I wondered what people who are accustomed to this division of web tools (web designers, etc.) would think of this idea of web tool integration. Would it encourage more web use, more creativity and more interactivity by more users, perhaps by those who might be willing and able to get involved with one web tool, but not three (or more?)
as for those already actively engaged in web content production, etc., would such integrated tools be welcomed, be resented as lowering the barriers to entry for the "unwashed masses", or simply be thought irrelevant by those who are so accustomed to using separate web tools that it just seems natural to do so?
I do not pretend to suggest a definitive answer, i merely pose the question and invite your input.
1. I'm not sure what is this integration, if it hasn’t yet taken place. We have Mozilla/SeaMonkey, which have browser and editor, and there is Firefox which by using extensions can even have ftp.
Is this the integration or should it be something more integrated; some kind of editing browser?
2. I don’t think that it is a matter of tools. It sounds funny, that someone would get frightened of three tools, but not one big one. I think that internet creativity (basic one) is already very easy (sometimes you need only browser). And if someone knows that and has something to say, he will do that. So matby the main problem is not about the browser, but about people, who don't know how easy it is.
3. I agree that internet shouldn't be a place for passive users, but is it? We've got forums, wherever there is an article, there is a possibility of posting a comment, there are many bloging services, and the most important, there are great free hosts and al kind of free software you can use. So I think that internet isn't about passive browsing, it can be vary active (if one only wants), and not because of tools you use, but the software on the internet. Panrac,
thank you for your response.
Berners-Lee noted w3's Amaya as an example of an editor integrated directly into a browser by design. his idea was that many (most?) documents should be considered collaborative, and that a reader should be able to immediately modify it, add to it, or add external (or internal) links to additional documents.
of course this was years before anyone ever thought of things like wikis, etc.
if i want to edit an online document, i can:
1) hunt it down and read it in Firefox
2) save a local copy, and then edit it with Bluefish
3) upload it back to where it came from with Kbear
assuming i have sufficient permissions to do so.
this is because i:
1) have installed, configured, maintained, learned and know how to use correctly Firefox
2) have installed, learned, maintained, and know how to use correctly Bluefish
3) have have installed, learned, maintained, and know how to use correctly Kbear
Whew! that's a lot of work. yet i have done that so many times that it somehow seems "natural" to do so. since i am interested in the process and technology, it doesn't seem like that much of a chore to me.
but for many people, step 1 is as far as they want to go, and for some, it's as far as they are able to go, due to limits of their time, interest, and mental abilities. not everyone can or will expend the time and effort to go further.
that's a shame, because it doesn't mean that they don't have anything to say.
rather, it just means that we have made it so difficult that it's not worth the bother. so instead, they just passively read whatever is served up to them at their friendly local gated portal like Yahoo, MSN, AOL or whatever.
perhaps we shouldn't be to critical of them. in this busy, demanding, complicated modern world, people hardly have time to breathe anymore. so understandably they just tend to do what is easiest. maybe if web interactivity required less of users, more of them would interact.
what this all comes down to is ease of use, which to me implies simplicity. maybe the ideal is:
1) one tool
2) with all functions seamlessly integrated
3) "pushbutton easy" to use
4) and absolutely reliable (it just works, every time).
if that could be achieved, more people would actually "interact" with the web, which would be, in general, a good thing.
I think it very much depends on what type of website you're talking about. I don't want other people messing about with my content so I certainly wouldn't welcome it on my own sites. I do, though, have a photo gallery which users can upload to; but that's the only part they can add to (apart from the forum, but that's a different matter).
Wiki sites normally have their own editors/uploaders so I'm not really sure what the point of a fully-integrated browse/edit/upload program would be.
Plus, there's 1 big problem with allowing users to update content. Not all users know what they're talking about (Wikipedia is notorious for holding incorrect entries). Plus there are too many malicious people around who could add offensive or abusive content.
I agree with DoctorBeaver. The kind of tool You're talking about simp won't make the internet more interactive than wikis.
And second thing is that there are possibilities to create you're own page using only browser.
So still, I think that the main bound for bigger activity of internet users is their knowledge about how easy it is, and of course their will.
Second, I think that the installation of a program isn't as difficult as get to know it. So if we are talking about this one tool for everyone, I think that the most important would be to unify the way of browsing, editing and uploading, and I don't imagine how it should look like (although it sounds fun and it would be great if possible).
But sill I very much like the idea of a one tool, and it almost exists because one can use a Firefox with a FireFTP and Codetch (editor - I know only, thay it exists, theoretically it's wysiwyg but I don't know is it good).
Dreamweaver is sort of like an all in one program. So is FireFox, but any changes you make to foreign web pages (meaning; not your own), aren't saved on the respective web pages' server.
