It doesn't matter how many "experts" are involved in a Web 2.0 design. What matters is their core belief which so often emphasizes the technology before the actual user experience. Product, developer and design gurus often rely on the bells and whistles which often ignore has simplicity and the perfect user experience. One simply has to view the negative comments on ABCnews.com's recent rollout to see how often the mark is missed. As one comment reads from the above article: My interpretation of Jacob’s comments is not that he is anti-Web 2.0, but rather that he is pro-good design. We can all agree that Web 2.0 is a good thing, but can we also say the use of Web 2.0 guarantees good desi...

It doesn't matter how many "experts" are involved in a Web 2.0 design. What matters is their core belief which so often emphasizes the technology before the actual user experience. Product, developer and design gurus often rely on the bells and whistles which often ignore has simplicity and the perfect user experience. One simply has to view the negative comments on ABCnews.com's recent rollout to see how often the mark is missed. As one comment reads from the above article: My interpretation of Jacob’s comments is not that he is anti-Web 2.0, but rather that he is pro-good design. We can all agree that Web 2.0 is a good thing, but can we also say the use of Web 2.0 guarantees good design? What I hear Jacob saying is “don’t confuse the two”. I’m seeing places where a Web 2.0 widget is placed on a page, and it looks like an experiment rather than an integrated design. Web 2.0 for the sake of Web 2.0. Our latest implementations include Web 2.0, but we started with user requirements and good designs way before we decided to use Web 2.0.