Great points. Thanks for taking the time to write in.

First his analogy of the ‘print’ to ‘web’ evolution with ‘theater’ to ‘film’ is apt for Web 1.0, given the dominance of the Document Object Model is 1.0. But it seems to miss that the evolution of Web 2.0 has no clear parallel in the “prestructured attended presentation” domain. Television and radio, as parts of the “broadcast domain” with their long history of content control in their editorial decisions would seem to be closer, though still very inexact analogy. The Web 1.0 seems to me to be a convergence of the domains of print (distributed static document) and broadcast (distributed animated document).

Web 2.0 has no clear parallel as it is the one of the first information channel in which user contribution is as important, if not more important, than editorial contribution, a phenomena not seen in print, film, or television (with the except of game and reality programs). In theater there has been experiments in performance art & guerilla theater to build audience interaction/inclusion and in radio the ‘talk’ show derives itself directly from user input. There is a rational argument to be made that Web 2.0 is a closer cousin to the radio ‘talk’ show format than any other media channel.

Second, “form follows function” is a utilitarian expression that overlooks who is defining “function”. Like many, he bandies about the term ‘user context’ without helping us to understand what that means. Functionally speaking, it is a creation of derived information sets with atomic names associated with a particular entity. Experientially it is the collected preferences and habits of a particular user or group of users. Experiential definitions can be dynamically acquired (profiling) or pre-determined (role based). It is not clear here what is the source of the underlying information? It is not at all clear which, if either Mr. Willis in leaning on.

Lastly, he seems to believe that Web 2.0 design applied to commerce site success will be driven by the aggregation of user goal satisfaction but overlooks the goal / objectives of the site owners. Commercial Web 2.0 and its attendant user contribution ability does not seem to add productively to the commercial interaction instance. Utilitarianism driven design is too one-sided in its user bias and combined with 2.0 principles begs the question of whether a user has any useful contribution to make to a commercial web site, other than collecting endorsements or optimizing user profiles.

Interactive design assumes both the presenter (owner) and user (consumer) have goals and seeks to construct flows and scenarios that are mutually satisfying. It is not so much that ‘everything we know about web design is wrong’ as much as where do you look for a model on which to evolve web design.

I agree that neither print nor radio nor television nor theater nor film are not the right ancestor models. All are strongly depended on pre-defined content and are essentially passively consumed products delivered though different channels but the key is they are all dominantly passively consumed.

I would offer that the ’sales process’ or ‘first date model’ is a better model for commercial sites. It recognizes the process is interactive and has distinct steps that are sufficient though not always necessary: 1) Discovery and Prospecting: You must find and attract people to what you have to offer. 2) Ascertation of Needs: What is it that you have that they need? How do you find out what the their needs are and how do you go about matching those needs to your offers (goals)? 3) Commitment: how do you get the client/user/visitor to say “yes” and commit to you. Oddly this work both in selling nearly anything and finding some one you want to spend time with.

I would argue that the evolutionary future of the Web is less about design than how do we move beyond DOM (Document Object Model) to IOM (Information Object Model). At least, on that point Mr. Willis and I are in agreement.

I like it especially when Dan says “online experiences come down to a single user, the context they create, and the satisfaction of their individual goals”

Thanks for covering this important issue.