[HN Gopher] Web is Dead: introducing the temporal web
___________________________________________________________________
Web is Dead: introducing the temporal web
Author : twww
Score : 17 points
Date : 2021-11-25 12:14 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mirror.xyz)
(TXT) w3m dump (mirror.xyz)
| rchaud wrote:
| A very, very confusing article that jams together several
| seemingly unrelated concepts, and makes it hard to understand
| what the overall point is.
|
| - different sites having different UIs (so?)
|
| - Companies use tools like Intercom chatbots because they don't
| have the resources to develop them in house (again, so? don't
| reinvent the wheel)
|
| The case study presented is a crypto wallet, because of course it
| is. I have yet to see an article from a person with ".eth" in
| their handle that isn't shilling NFTs, Web3 or something else
| that's pretty much only for the Ethereum crowd.
|
| The thing about Web 1.0 was that it sold itself. The first time
| you saw it in action at a friend's house or in a college computer
| lab, chances are you immediately recognized its value. Whether it
| was exploring X-files fansites, Shockwave games, or even the
| original CERN site with its then-novel hyperlinked structure. It
| was Minitel in full color, with audio and video support
| (RealPlayer "buffering...." messages aside)
|
| Web3 OTOH doesn't seem to be much besides gauche e-trinkets and
| dApps that are mostly crypto/NFT stores. Is there a killer app or
| use case that isn't already served by the actual open web?
| twww wrote:
| i apparently failed at getting my message across... c'est la
| vie !
| rchaud wrote:
| I hope I was not too harsh in my comment. There are a lot of
| disparate threads in the article. If you wanted to get one
| point across, what would that be?
|
| Web3 isn't an easy concept to understand because it has 'web'
| in the name, yet it can't be accessed via the clearweb, only
| via browser extensions, or mirror sites.
|
| The NFT site "hicetnunc" went down recently, with little to
| no explanation and people on Twitter recommended going to one
| of several of its mirrors, all with a different address.
| Would a regular user go to "amazon.win" if "amazon.com" was
| down?
|
| There's so much about Web3 that feels shady or prone to
| malfunctioning at any time, with no communication. I hope you
| can understand that that aspect of it simply does not
| reconcile with the 'monetize-first' attitude of its
| proponents.
| theshadowknows wrote:
| The very first website I ever saw was at my cousin's house
| during a visit for Christmas. They had just recently "gotten
| the online" and he was showing me his favorite site which was
| an Oprah talk show discussion forum. At first I was like "wow
| this is stupid" but then he told me that there's discussions
| for "almost everything" and that you're talking to people all
| over the world...now I was from a town of about 10,000 people
| or so and had probably met a thousand people total in my
| lifetime if that (I think I was 8 or so at the time) so it was
| mind boggling to me to have the ability to just talk to someone
| on the other side of the world just by clicking a few icons on
| a computer screen...I was hooked immediately.
|
| Flash forward years and years and so far I just have not sensed
| the same magic and awe with things like blockchain "stuff" but
| it may be that I'm not allowing myself to be mentally agile and
| open (I'm willing to admit it's a possibility, at least).
| faraaz98 wrote:
| Law of diminishing returns i guess
| CryptoPunk wrote:
| Web 3.0 immediately sells itself the first time you make a
| transfer using your MetaMask account. This is a transaction
| effected solely from your computer, using no trusted third
| party intermediary or proprietary financial network. Its appeal
| is immediately evident.
| dusted wrote:
| Web is not dead.
| bellyfullofbac wrote:
| God, maybe I'm dumb despite my beliefs to the contrary, but what
| is this guy trying to say? Ctrl-F for "temporal":
|
| > web4k aka "the temporal web": user interactions across screen
| space and time of an immutable conversation
|
| > What do we have?
|
| > * The temporal web with conversation-first interfaces,
| leveraging decentralized communication protocols.
|
| > * Forcing developers to really think at the isolated-component
| level, while reducing the surface of worry (remember mobile-
| first, constraints are a blessing).
|
| > * Making their life simpler (even though they don't want it
| because... money, you know)
|
| > * And most importantly making users' lives simpler: catering
| better for their intents and adding outstanding build-in support
|
| That's a lot of bullshit bingo points...
|
| Is it basically a chatbot as a UI?
|
| To misuse his term, I thought "temporal web" was the recognition
| that the internet you're looking at now is different from
| yesterday's, because content get added, deleted and changed all
| the time. A web where you can rewind to "Version from $DATE"
| would be interesting...
| bellyfullofbac wrote:
| Addendum: I think booking.com tried this (maybe they still have
| it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftr9qW8Axiw
|
| But me clicking a button to see the details of my booking and
| getting transferred to a chat interface where my click was
| translated to a question with a "processing" progress bar
| irritated me to no end. And it replies with just a partial info
| inside a tiny chat bubble instead of having all the info in
| full screen! Just give me the freaking page with my booking
| details, godfuckingdamnit!
| twww wrote:
| interesting, didn't know about the booking experiment
|
| but as i was trying to explain, they missed the point and
| just created frustration for users
|
| didn't want my article to sound like bullshit, that's why i
| built a poc to try and explain that it's not about having
| chatbots, but having entire components in a chronological
| order of the interactions with a website
|
| in your case the booking details would be easily accessible
| just by scrolling up for instance
| Nevermark wrote:
| I have long thought that a doc centric view could unite apps and
| web much better.
|
| Obviously docs we use every day are doc centric. Although the
| holy grail of easily embedding and linking docs has not been
| achieved.
|
| Games and other "session" type interaction should simply be docs.
| You create a new game session, you could have several. You pick
| up each session by opening it. You can back up sessions yourself
| if the app doesn't let you, or you just prefer to do so. You are
| in "control" of you own data, i.e. game state. (Identity
| management can allow transferred/leg-up games to be easily
| differentiated from true one person game accomplishment.)
|
| Accounts are just docs. A doc shared by two owners with data and
| state that gets appended as it is used. Much easier to have two
| accounts with your financial exchange or bank, or anyone else if
| you like, without special custom support for that kind of thing.
|
| Apps, web or native, take a back seat. They can be auto dowloaded
| as needed. App folders become just caches as docs know what apps
| or app classes they need.
|
| Most doc creation is simply a duplication of a template with no
| parameters, or perhaps a simple configuration of
| creator/viewer/owner/capability parameters. (i.e. an energy
| utility account.)
|
| Because everything is a doc, users can organize them, back them
| up, etc. Own their own data.
|
| A lot more thought could go into this. But there is no reason why
| the code behind different doc types would matter much - native,
| web, etc. once the limitations of those platforms for this
| simpler model were ironed out. Why should the user ever have to
| care or be aware of platform choices?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-25 23:02 UTC)