Limitations of Web 2.0

Spiders web

The dream of Web 2.0 is a technological vision that is way off target.

While the Web 2.0 technologies (HTML, JavaScript, Ajax, and so on) are indeed cool and interactive, the underlying architecture – the HTTP mechanism – is a centralized control point for delivering data from one service to another. The World Wide Web is a computer network with a central server that acts as the master control center for the whole system. Web 2.0 tries to improve the capability of the Web server by adding new technologies, but the problems are that these new features don’t completely replace the existing ones. For example, the Web server provides on-demand access to information, but the application already existed and is running at the local machine. 

Web 2.0 tried to improve integration by giving the user access to the canvas or virtual canvas (an area on the screen) made of pixels. The pixels can be drawn on and input. controlling a traditional way (JavaScript) or with AJAX (Flash, etc). The latter gives the user access to the HTML/JavaScript code, which is accessible from any Web browser. However, the canvas interface is not easily customizable. Canvas interfaces are provided only in extensions, which may require plugins to enable the features. Also, Canvas elements are not object-oriented in the sense of the value type, and therefore are not grouped in JavaScript arrays, and cannot be manipulated using JavaScript. Another major shortcoming of Web 2.0 is that existing, although highly versatile, business model systems, such as Microsoft Dynamics GP “fat” (Business Portal), are not easily integrated.

Managerial web design interface, which is supposed to integrate different areas of your business through “business logic layers”

What we hear from our customers

  1. “My business depends on a specific piece of hardware and software. How can I integrate my business processes around this piece of infrastructure?
  2. “My business processes are legacy. The web interfaces available today for my users are not comfortable for my workers if they have to change hardware and software. How can I still leverage Web 2.0 technologies to improve my business?”

At a high-level level, the technologies are available and can be deployed. Also, you should evaluate your budget before taking such decisions; unfortunately, “business as usual” is not an option in a rapidly changing, competitive business environment.

Business As usual – no budget

In business as usual, when you have no budget and no resources the best choice is to Healthcare Service Agencies (HSAs) or Government Organizations, etc. and use their resources in a very cost-effective way. However, in the real world this frequently doesn’t work out for many reasons:

  1. HSAs are usually short of resources. cope with high volumes of incoming calls and with the resulting increase in public liability risk.
  2. There is always a large gap between the business line and the customer or employee line. In many cases, the former is much smaller than the latter. Your communications staff are often faced with a disconnection between the end-user and the systems.
  3. There is a communication problem between you and your suppliers.
  4. Un WIN/Switchover. During un switches, VLANs are no longer synchronized across interfaces. this type of problem can be quite challenging for the operations team.
  5. When your equipment is shared, the license requirements are quite complex. See #1.
  6. End-user skills are not up-to-date.

Despite the obvious fact that it is your responsibility to train your workers, the lack of synchronized application environments will burden you. Beside your workers, this will result in significant costs in software licenses, training, deployment, and support.

How can you minimize your budget and minimize your workers’ skill consumption? The most obvious approach is to do away with legacy applications. As well as their license costs, their ongoing training and support become a significant component of the total expenses. They are already using a few applications, why make them use your legacy, transport software and try to cram it into a package that may already be stripped to half of its original functionality? Even worse, this process still contributes to the larger problem of broken applications.