Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Barrier to Web 2.0 — IT Departments

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the bofh-gone-luddite-or-lazy dept.

IT 328

jcatcw writes "Wikis, social networks, and other Web 2.0 technologies are finding resistance inside companies from the very people who should be rolling them out: the IT staff. The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) in London had to bypass IT to get Web 2.0 technologies to end users. Both Morgan Stanley and Pfizer are rolling out Web 2.0 projects, but it took some grass roots organizing to get there."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Possible Explanation (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515119)

Perhaps it's because IT departments actually know how complicated, messy, potentially insecure and how awful support of such "projects" are going to be. As a general rule of thumb, tech-types don't usually give into the hype about things like Web 2.0 that columnists, marketers and your usual assortment of weirdos do.

Re:Possible Explanation (5, Informative)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515227)

Perhaps it's because IT departments actually know how complicated, messy, potentially insecure and how awful support of such "projects" are going to be. As a general rule of thumb, tech-types don't usually give into the hype about things like Web 2.0 that columnists, marketers and your usual assortment of weirdos do.

Fuck Web 2.0, IT departments are slow to move on any project except those that somehow benefit IT itself. We have an extraordinarily difficult time getting IT to update broken links on our website (we used to have access via the shitty CMS they were running but they now took that away too) nevermind solutions such as chat, online appointment scheduling, or additional databases to store information captured from web forms.

We have had to go to third party outfits that specialize in hosting their own web application solutions and paying them yearly sums of money to do for us what IT will not. Not a single department has a decent relationship with IT at any of the last few places I have worked (especially the current) and we're all wasting money because of it.

So, while Web 2.0 is an example, I can name 100 other issues that are not Web 2.0 that are priority that they also will not support -- and it has nothing to do with those that work in IT not accepting the "fads" that others will.

Re:Possible Explanation (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515259)

It's too bad your IT department won't fix broken links, but jumping into AJAX and related technologies without properly assessing security and maintenance costs is insane. It's the IT guys who are going to have to deal with all of this one way or the other, so they're probably quite happy that some outsider is going to have the pleasure and pain.

Web 2.0 is about 80% hype, 10% mature technologies and 10% immature technologies. Marketers are pushing hard for this (through their loyal minions the columnist and the tech reporter), but I still think when the guys who maintain all of this are saying "Whoah, let's think real hard about this", someone ought to listen. Blaming IT is simply shooting the messenger.

Re:Possible Explanation (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515355)

Your problem is that you need to kill the BOFH. You will need a silver stake, electrical gloves, KCN pills, a SCBA, 20 oz of deionized water blessed by a geek, and The New Testament [bell-labs.com] . Don't enter at night, and don't expect to catch the BOFH by surprise. They don't sleep, they lurk. If you can sabotage the coffee and soda machines you can drive them out of their lair. Otherwise you may have to defeat their army of PFYs. Good luck! And if they capture you and decide to Megger your balls, use the cyanide pills.

Re:Possible Explanation (1)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515387)

We have had to go to third party outfits that specialize in hosting their own web application solutions and paying them yearly sums of money to do for us what IT will not. Not a single department has a decent relationship with IT

Maybe you should fire your head of IT, and maybe NESTA should as well. IT is at it's heart a service field, existing to facilitate the the companies production. If the IT staff is getting in the way, get them out of the way permanently. The same way you would remove a secretary who refused to deliver phone messages, or a janitor who refused sweep. The flip side of that is, if your IT staff warn you that something may be a security risk or devour resources, then don't hold them responsible when they are right.

Re:Possible Explanation (1)

realthing02 (1084767) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515487)

It's that "responsible when right" part that's tricky, if you blow everything out of proportion into a "sky is falling," they are never wrong per se, and it makes life harder on the rest of us. This is not to say the sky is never falling, but add an "i think" to the end of it.

Unfortunately wading around security policies for weeks on end because some IT guy described my (obviously) low risk project as High (causing national harm?) on a Fips 199 assessment is the end result.

Re:Possible Explanation (1)

realthing02 (1084767) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515435)

Wow, I'd mod you up to heaven if i could for this. IT, understandably, needs to make sure things are done safely and are integrated with as few bumps as possible. But every interaction I've had with IT people has been a night mare. Very similar to what the parent was saying, and i have to agree with it. To those calling Web 2.0 a buzzword, you are correct to some extent. But for those of you throwing out HIPAA and SOX as rebuttals, i feel you are equally as ignorant as the 'MBA' who is a fan of such and such a technology. Why the hell would i use collaborative web features or Ajax for health information, or my accounting practices? I don't know many who would. Now, setting up a collaborative research database between my business partners and myself to share research? Awesome idea, too bad it'll take 3 years to get it out. And most of that isn't development time at all, since there are plenty of COTS products available. It really is frustrating to see some great new technologies relegated to the back seat, at times. I'm all for security, I'm all for testing, and smooth implementations, but I'm not a fan of 3 week advances for meetings and then a guy who wants to apply his process without even asking what my project is or about.

Re:Possible Explanation (1)

realthing02 (1084767) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515529)

I'm an idiot who can't select "plain ol' text". I won't judge anyone for ignoring that entire post.

Get with the times! (4, Funny)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515671)

We have an extraordinarily difficult time getting IT to update broken links on our website
Your company is really out of date. Maintaining a web isn't an IT function, it belongs to specialized web developers. If you guys were with it, you wouldn't have inept IT people who can't keep the web site up to date; you'd be like other companies, with an inept web team that can't the web site up to date!

Re:Get with the times! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515847)

We have a "web team" and the two of them are lumped under IT.

Re:Possible Explanation (4, Interesting)

The Great Pretender (975978) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515887)

I'm supporting the parent here. The ego's associated to our IT department were astronomic. They actually believed that they can never be fired because they were the only ones who know the 'guts' of our infrastructure. You should have seen them drop a load in their shorts when we had the whole IT infrastructure review by a third party. They pointed out the security risks that hadn't been noticed, the short-falls, the poor implementation (from a business perspective) and more importantly the fact that 25% time was being wasted by IT on IT 'pet' projects that had no sign-off from management. We fired the whole department except for a temp and hired him full-time because he actually worked efficiently and restocked (out-sourcing during the re-hire process). Now we have a more secure system and an IT group who are actually responsive to the IT needs of the company, rather than pretendeding that the IT position was a personal hobby. What a bunch of arrogant, egotistical, slackers we had.

Pfizer? (3, Interesting)

winkydink (650484) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515247)

The same Pfizer that just announced yet another loss of identity data and has been fingered as having compromised hosts that are sending out Viagra spam? (I am not making this up!)

Something tells me that these guys need to be working more closely with their IT department, not less.

Re:Pfizer? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515283)

Those trying to hawk these new technologies have a clear purpose in creating divisions between the companies and their IT departments. Generally, most people don't understand what IT departments do, other than "they make the servers work and send up someone to fix my notebook when in won't sync properly".

Re:Possible Explanation (0, Troll)

yoha (249396) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515279)

Precisely, IT hates work, whereas the profit side of the business is used to it.

Re:Possible Explanation (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515315)

Precisely, IT hates work, whereas the profit side of the business is used to it.


There's work, and then there's nightmares.

Years ago, the ISP I worked for was sold, and the new guy didn't like the web server we were using, and insisted on moving over to Windows and IIS. I strongly urged against it, at least right away, and not without properly assessing the issues.

Of course, tons of Perl scripts broke, pissing off our hosting customers. There were difficulties in just about every area, and I spent at least a couple of weeks of very long hours finally bringing everything together, only to have the most outrageous vulnerabilities surface, and a bunch of the sites we hosted being defaced.

You can call me lazy if you like, but you're damn right that I don't like jumping into things just because it's the kewl, sexy new way of doing things.

Re:Possible Explanation (3, Insightful)

realthing02 (1084767) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515617)

Part of your view is the problem. Web 2.0 isn't a "sexy new technology", it's a paradigm shift. I can do web 2.0 functionality without Ajax/javascript. it might not look as sexy as what other's are doing, but is still in the paradigm of web 2.0. All of my complaints, thus far, have been technology independent. It's like confusing SOA or SAS with some technology/platform, instead of the idea that it is.

Unfortunately, it happens every day. And i understand that Ajax/javascript might be in a lot of the apps that are being blocked by IT departments, but i think it's a healthy exercise to make the clarification between the technology and the theory.

Re:Possible Explanation (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515655)

Part of your view is the problem. Web 2.0 isn't a "sexy new technology", it's a paradigm shift.


Mixing client-server is hardly a paradigm shift. Now that's a phrase that should be banned, and it's certainly one that makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up on end.

Re:Possible Explanation (4, Insightful)

Clover_Kicker (20761) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515677)

If IT doesn't want to support your pet technology, calling it a "paradigm shift" isn't going to change any minds.

Re:Possible Explanation (4, Insightful)

TheSkyIsPurple (901118) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515357)

I work in Enterprise IT, and we love work.
Our problem is that we're kept so busy because they've laid everyone off that we don't have time to get fluent in the specifics of every technology we'd like to implement.
And if we put something out there, since we're "Enteprise", it has to basically be perfect the first time out or whoever is in charge of us this week will end up torching the moving the project to another group to mis-run.

It's not "IT" that's your problem... its the executives and management.

Re:Possible Explanation (3, Insightful)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515439)

I think you just proved your parent's point: that other divisions generally do not have the same understanding of how much work is involved in a project like this, and thus cannot accurately allot time, money and manpower.

Re:Possible Explanation (4, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515625)

>Precisely, IT hates work, whereas the profit side of the business is used to it.

Right, and the "profit" side is busy hiring drones to churn out more TPS reports and all their plans end with "and the consulants will build x y and z." In IT WE build xyz. There's a difference "work" and "getting shit done." A good IT department does the latter.

No matter though, these articles are just springboards for people to complain about their companies IT department. Enjoy the bitchfest.

Re:Possible Explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515293)

That's an interesting question, though I feel I reeealy need to point out that it has nothing to do with what happened. Teal'c is merely trying to be useful, naturally being completely the opposite.

i have proofs!!! when Oneill and tealc were on the asteroid trying to detonate a bomb, and then trying to deactivate that bomb, Oneill tried to turn it off but it didn't work. so useless tealc points out the obvious and says "the bomb is still armed, oneill" or whatever the shova said, and Oneill looks at tealc annoyed and says "Yeah, I knew that already". tealc, stop trying to say things. you don't know anything, proof is every episode where you say 'i haven't seen this before'

Hammond = God > shova tealc and eat tealc for food and sustinence.
there was one time where he cloned tealc, and ate the clone in front of the other clone. and then consumed the other clone. Shol'va!

so basically, tealc was wasting time. stop trying to shoot the staff weapon backwards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Possible Explanation (2, Insightful)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515363)

Darn it, it's true. Even the best of the best can't always support every browser, and my absolute least-favorite thing in the world is account for esoteric browser inconsistencies in Javascript and CSS. I cannot see myself building a "Web 2.0" site for anyone for any reason.

For one, web pages that output HTML with little or no Javascript and which are built in such a way as to need very little browser-tweaking keep me sleeping well at night. Secondly, I don't see that it adds a ton of value in most places. It just makes your back button behavior wierd. I'll admit that eBay's new interface is cool, as are Slashdot and Digg. OkCupid and Facebook, on the other hand, would be just as usable (if not more so) without it, but of course they're doing it to capture the attention of young neophiles. I don't know either way, but my gut says this demographic is not incredibly important to companies like Morgan Stanley either way.

Re:Possible Explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515561)

Also, the bigger the organization, the more red tape. It's not worth fighting for Ajax when I get paid the same to write server side code. And let me tell you, it IS a fight. I scheduled a ticket to get the Ajax framework installed on my machine months ago. Still not done, even though it's as easy as clicking an EXE. Multiple inquiries have yielded "the check is in the mail." Even when I do get it installed, I have to beg architecture for another 6 months to let me use the Ajax components in my apps.

JUST NOT WORTH IT!

This isn't limited to Ajax - I just used it as an example. This is typical for anything outside the norm. We're still using tables for rendering some of our Intranet apps, even though I always code with CSS for layout. Yeeesh.

It's not about money - our organization makes plenty and they pay their devs in kind. It's the massive bureaucracy and red tape that prevent anything from being improved. I know I'm not alone.

I guess I really don't care what they want me to code. It's just that sometimes I think I have a unique approach to a problem and would like to explore my ideas... I feel like some of my ideas could improve the user experience, but the bureaucracy almost always disagrees. At least I get paid a lot!

Re:Possible Explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515831)

Have you ever worked at a big company? "Complicated, messy, potentially insecure and awful support" describes every program I ever worked, at a big company.

I can see why IT would hate something that's complicated, messy, potentially insecure, and has awful support. But that's what their job is, and it's what they've been doing for decades. Get over it. If you want to run a prison, I hear the Department of Corrections is hiring.

Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515123)

Might this be a hint, maybe? If I had to bypass my doctor for a certain type of treatment, wouldn't I also wonder if I was doing something stupid?

Web 2.0 is not the sudden computer solution to every business problem. You would have thought that businesses would have learned the dangers of over reliance on computer 'solutions' after the Dot Com Crash.

Too bad! (2, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515131)

IT doesn't want Web 2.0 but end users do. Too bad! End users typically don't know what is good for them when it comes to computers and networking.

Web 2.0 is a bloated, risky, pointless waste of time, money, bandwidth, and electricity.

Or at least that is my opinion. ... opinions are not trolls or flamebait. Please don't mod me down because I'm testy, you don't agree, or you think I am being "stuck up". Reply instead.

Re:Too bad! (3, Insightful)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515215)

I'm inclined to agree. At the very least, they should be using services that don't default to mashing your data up with everyone else's. The idea of using del.icio.us or a social network apparatus like Facebook for potentially sensitive exchanges is absolutely and utterly horrifying.

The end user tends to want shit like Webshots or Bonzi Buddy too. Just because they clamor and whine for something that looks flashy and easy, doesn't mean that they should get it.

Re:Too bad! (4, Insightful)

Rycross (836649) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515281)

Certain things like wikis are really nice for development teams. The trick is using the technology for the correct problem.

I see two possible cases here:
1) The IT department is incompetent.
2) Some manager who wants to be able to write that he "synergized the business using new paradigms in a Web 2.0 world" in their resume.

I'm betting on the latter. But thats probably because I'm used to it.

Re:Too bad! (1)

Noodles_HK (861825) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515221)

I second that... While I understand that IT is there to help the business users get their job done, we also have the obligation to ensure overall network and data integrity. If IT lets every user access to new, cool, must-have "critical collaboration" tool, we wouldn't really be doing our job. Everyone wants it now. We should act as responsible gatekeepers who help users decide if the web tool dejour really should be implemented across the enterprise, or just on your personal laptop at home.

Re:Too bad! (5, Insightful)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515321)

Web 2.0 is a slippery term. If by web 2.0 you mean user-generated content, then I have to disagree.

One example: wiki based support. I find that people are, for many reasons, willing to help others. Some may like showing how much they know. Some are altruistic. And so on. Now, let's say you have an application that gets used by 25000 people and a development team of 15 people. You probably don't have time to support the application to the extent it needs. Enter a wiki. If you have a wiki, that can at least minimize the questions / requests sent to your team, leaving you to focus on enhancements, future looking stuff, etc. Using a wiki, you can actually get your user base to at least partially support itself.

Sure, a social networking site *might* not be the right thing for you F500 company's intranet. But a wiki might be just what you need.

Re:Too bad! (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515565)

I usually figure that Web 2.0 is basically AJAX or similar webapp-like technology when it actually means something other than an empty buzzword.

Re:Too bad! (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515595)

Indeed! We have a wiki at our company with something like 10,000 employees. It is very popular and received hundreds of edits every day. IT doesn't manage it, it was some guy who decided that it would be nice to setup one. The wiki is now two years old but IT still threats it like a step child because it is new and foreign to them. I imagine it was the same thing with the corporate IM clients we are using. Most IT folks seem to have trouble realizing that they serve the same role to the company as the cleaning staff - they should be keeping stuff working and clean and then, please, get out of the way. Instead they grow into a nuisance where every change in the environment becomes a massive beaurocratic undertaking.

For example, many people want to use Firefox to browse the intranet (we're developers after all). But IT still gets away with "Sorry, Firefox is not supported here. If you have a legitimate business case for requesting a change please fill in this form to create a request ticket along with your department managers approval bla bla bla"

Re:Too bad! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515715)

Yes, and when that wiki breaks or is incompatable with something, guess who's going to be at fault? People are going to blame I.T., not the guy that created it. And I imagine it's probably based on MySQL in an IT dept used to MS SQL Server, so they've no idea how to make a back-up of it (even if it's possible.)

(Of course, you're going to blame IT when they try to do proactive mantainence, expecting them to work in the weekend when you wouldn't consider it yourself. But then you'll blame IT when something breaks too.)

The mentality you have is that of a 'client' with IT being the 'vendor' -- the catch is that a real vendor will *charge you* for the services; you ask something tricky and they keep ratcheting up the price. Internal IT depts don't have that option; and you simply won't believe the hidden costs behind implementing a new piece of technology.

The correct attitude to have is everyone on the same team. You work *with* IT, you don't treat them as a mere vendor.

Keeping things working is nowhwere near as easy as you think on things as complex as computers. You do your best, but some user will bitch and moan because the updates you've pushed out to every machine three

Users (1)

Propaganda13 (312548) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515421)

Remember, the users that want Web 2.0 are the same users that wanted animated gifs and midi.

Re:Too bad! (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515683)

I can't disagree more. End users are the only ones that know what's good for them. As a business, the goal is to give the customer what the customer will buy, and if that means web 2.0, then do web 2.0. If users flock to it, then it must be filling a need. Web 2.0 has some security issues and it's not optimal, but for a lot of applications that either doesn't matter or a good IT group could work around it anyway.

Duh.. (5, Funny)

TBerben (1061176) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515135)

Of course the IT 1.0 staff is causing trouble, companies need to upgrade them to 2.0 first!

Re:Duh.. (2, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515153)

I'm waiting for Web 2.0 SP1, personally.

Re:Duh.. (0, Redundant)

Rycross (836649) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515229)

Dude, everyone knows you need to wait until SP2.

Spin (5, Insightful)

Rycross (836649) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515137)

Am I the only one who read this as:

"IT departments are wisely refusing to spend uneeded man hours and money on technological buzzwords that will not help, and will likely hurt, the business. Management foolishly decided to override them instead of listening."

Maybe I'm just jaded.

Re:Spin (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515217)

Why do I never have mod points when I need them... I was thinking similar thoughts...

Re:Spin (1)

Jimmy King (828214) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515243)

I guess I'm jaded then, too. Having done some time contracting I've seen plenty of internal corporate websites. The majority I've seen would in no way be helped by using web 2.0 stuff. As you said, they would take longer to build, be harder to troubleshoot when there is an issue, and require more technical people to create and maintain them who could probably be doing more for the company using those skills on some other project.

Re:Spin (3, Insightful)

Ezzaral (1035922) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515563)

Add me to the jaded column as well then. I think your translation is pretty spot on. This is picking up where Portals left off - "We don't really know what we will do with it, but we need it!" Like the business world needs 200,000 more empty MyJournal pages...

Re:Spin (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515725)

If I read it correctly, the project that management had to override the IT department for was successful. Maybe the IT department foolishly thought that they knew what would hurt the business better than management.

Re:Spin (3, Insightful)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515859)

A couple years ago I worked for a company whose management decided that spam was a good way to communicate with customers. Everybody loves email, right? After ignoring warnings that sending half a dozen emails daily to our entire customer base would be counter-productive and eventually prevent truly important email from going through, they forced us to implement their stupid ideas. It didn't take long until we were on the junk mail list at more than one major email provider. I'm not sure how much business that generated, but I'm fairly certain the profit was less than the cost of having our attorney's spend their time wrangling with the attorney's at these email providers trying to get us off their spam filter, not to mention the time IT spent trying to find ways to route email around the filter while the lawyering was going on.

Management is not somehow magically more competent than IT, just because their management. Read The Dilbert Principle for more details.

Re:Spin (1)

baggins2001 (697667) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515793)

Nope, I think your insightful.

I'm so tired of sitting here and getting them to explain how it fits into our business model and how it will actually improve business productivity. Oh and how they howl when I want a metric.

Case in point, I wouldn't adopt wireless until we had the budget to do it right and the personnel to monitor it. I listened for a year " So and so has wireless, why can't we have wireless. It would be neat if we had wireless. Then when people come and visit us they could connect to our network, just like so and so does". Four months later I ran into the VP of Technology for that company. I knew him and he said they were having problems with their network. They had spent a hundred dollars on AP's and couldn't understand why 15 computers couldn't connect to it and work across the network at the same time.
I guess it's better to implement this stuff when you have no idea what your doing.

I also went back to the Sales manager and asked him why he forgot to tell me about their network issues.

Re:Spin (2, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515845)

Sometimes it is indeed intelligent IT engineers resisting brainless buzzwords. But just as often it's stupid IT engineers resisting new technologies the company actually needs. God knows I've seen both.

A case in point is Wiki technology, which manages to be both overhyped and extremely useful. On the one hand, you have snake-oil types who push elaborate (and usually pretty buggy) wiki engines that are supposed to replace every enterprise application on the intranet. On the other hand, you have nice simple wiki implementations that improve collaboration and cooperation with a very low training overhead.

More SPAM from COMPUTERWORLD (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515889)

Yet another IDG (ComputerWorld) story from and IDG shill in how many days? How many TODAY?

Looks like IDG (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) is really hitting Slashdot HARD, either that or they have a deal with Slashdot. Here's a partial list of the shills that regularly show up and have almost 100% article acceptance rates:

Ian Lamont [slashdot.com]
Lucas123 [slashdot.com]
coondoggie [slashdot.com]
inkslinger77 [slashdot.com]
narramissic [slashdot.com]
jcatcw [slashdot.com]

Looks like they spread out the work over a few shill user accounts, which is to be expected. If it's all OK and everything with the corporate ownership of Slashdot to be played by IDG, I suppose that's their business, but one would hope that they are actually getting PAID for being part of IDG's advertising program. And of course there should be disclosure so that visitors to Slashdot realize they are reading advertisements and not an article submitted by a "real" user...

Question (4, Insightful)

sphealey (2855) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515143)

How did the end-users get to bypass HIPPA, Sarbanes-Oxley, Regulation FD, and general GAAP auditing, management control, and business continuity requirements? If they could teach the "IT Departments" how to do that I am sure there would be great appreciation.

sPh

And why they shouldnt bar it ? (3, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515147)

Executive/marketing people are following the "hip" hype (reminds me of apple people) - just to make more flash and bang on user interface end and creating work equal to actual realization of a non web2.0 site, out of nowhere.

and not even having the vision to realize that all those nitty gritty stuff like ajax with highly exploitable activex, javascript, xml components are going to be summarily blocked by security software in near future. (some already creating problems)and the it peoplew will have to redo the thing all over to suit the security software producers' tastes this time.

no sir, it doesnt matter if a decent menu opens when you click a webpage, or it opens by turning and flashing and banging in some corner of the webpage whilst you were doing some other flashing and banging in another corner. data is the same, service is the same, exploitable security potential and work involved in realizing them are NOT.

Re:And why they shouldnt bar it ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515205)

So your solution is to live in the past?
This has nothing to do with Apple people and everything to do with advancing the state of the art. Yes, this includes making things look attractive and easier to use. Just because the 'old way' was tried and true doesn't mean that improvements can't be achieved, even from a bottom line business perspective.

Re:And why they shouldnt bar it ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515513)

improvements shouldnt cost 100% more of what creating the thing before the improvements have cost. not only doing the improvements, but maintaining and ensuring the quality of those improvements also cost double the 'non-improved' version. too much manpower and cash lost for some whizz and bang.

Re:And why they shouldnt bar it ? (3, Informative)

polaris878 (716143) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515411)

You hit the nail on the head. I'm a junior web programmer for a major university and we considered re-writing many of our applications to have a more Ajax/Web 2.0 feel. We attended an Ajax conference hosted by our university which our programming team attended. One of the senior programmers asked the presenter how to migrate to Ajax techniques without losing accessibility or security. The response? Ajax is virtually worthless with JavaScript disabled. So the only way to achieve accessibility is to have our pages branch to Ajax versions and the accessible HTML version. No thanks. Not only is Ajax not accessible whatsoever, JavaScript has been the cause of many security holes [devarticles.com] [devarticles.com]. What does JavaScript really offer that can't be done more securely using PHP, Perl, ColdFusion, or some other server-side language? I applaud IT departments that are hesitant in starting/changing their web infrastructure using insecure, immature and inaccessible technologies.

Re:And why they shouldnt bar it ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515543)

What does JavaScript really offer that can't be done more securely using PHP, Perl, ColdFusion, or some other server-side language?


server side, nothing. client side, 2 things :

1 - whizz and bang

2 - hacking client pc, planting rootkits, trojans, acquiring credit card numbers and passwords

Re:And why they shouldnt bar it ? (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515783)

1 - whizz and bang


AKA improved useability.

Re:And why they shouldnt bar it ? (2, Interesting)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515759)

It can provide feedback as the user types, it can embed an IM window in the page, and it can update the mail while the user's still reading it so that they don't miss a reply that would invalidate theirs. None of those things can be done completely with a server side language. The complete disregard of a technology is as bad as its overuse.

Re:And why they shouldnt bar it ? (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515791)

With all due respect, your post is very indicative of why a manage should override the IT department. Your post says that these management types are like apple people and then go on to say how that's bad. Unfortunately, companies and management are focused on making money, and right now apple's making it hand over fist by being hip, trendy and incorporating usability and just the right amount of flash and bang, things which require at least some javascript to pull off on a website.

Re:And why they shouldnt bar it ? (1)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515875)

no sir, it doesnt matter if a decent menu opens when you click a webpage, or it opens by turning and flashing and banging in some corner of the webpage whilst you were doing some other flashing and banging in another corner
Keen example. Google maps would be far more useful if it were only static HTML, and it would benefit my company if our customer location / status mashup didn't work. Also, wikipedia is worthless garbage and we should stop using it for our internal docs.

Thank you, thank you so much for your insights.

HIPAA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515165)

Well I read both stories and while it's hinted at. I'd think that legal would have as much difficulty with Web 2.0 as IT.

Barrier to non-existent technology... (1, Informative)

ZeroFactorial (1025676) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515167)

Wow. I never thought I'd see something this ridiculous even given space on slashdot.

"Web" 2.0 is the biggest marketing farce that's ever been created. It's NOT a technology!
It's a name for a subset of existing technologies used to make things "more interactive."

This is, hands down, the most idiotic claim that I've ever seen; okay, so maybe Al Gore takes the cake, but this comes close...

Re:Barrier to non-existent technology... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515359)

It's a name for a subset of existing technologies used to make things "more interactive."

So how does this differ from DHTML?

Re:Barrier to non-existent technology... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515395)

Actually it's true. Oreilly was looking for a slick name for a new conference they were hosting that was going to focus on these "new" technologies. They ultimately decided on "web 2.0" It's purely marketing. I'm sorry you have no understanding of the history behind Web 2.0 but that's just a fucking fact.

The features that Web 2.0 provides are quite nice and users generally like them, however, Web 2.0 stuff is a disaster in that it's just one more hack on a stack of hacks that we refer to as "the Web". Again, this is a fact and I'm sorry if you don't understand that. Tech people with even two brain cells to rub together understand this. Now, we may end up doing it any way because that's what pays the rent but it's not because it's good technology.

work-around services a new industry (2, Informative)

tenzig_112 (213387) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515175)

A company I work for has started to offer next-gen video hosting services (w/ one-to-one tracking, etc.) to customers who heretofore thought they simply could not have due to the intransigence of their own IT departments. So far, it's been interesting to hear the stories of the people who feel trapped by the people they hired to make this sort of thing possible.

Virtual companies a new industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515335)

That's the nice thing about virtual companies [boston.com] . There's really no one to "bypass" (except maybe the CEO and there's nothing one can do about that). Plus it's easier to offer services to other, traditional and new.

Heh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515179)

Advocating good sense never got anyone far. Advantage: Stupid shit

Smoke and Mirrors ... (2, Insightful)

Syncerus (213609) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515189)

Let me get this straight. You want to make the IT department pick up the slack for all the half-assed projects that some newb MBA deploys because he's a big fan of Kevin Rose and thinks it's cool? And that's a problem? The "resistance" mentioned in the lead-in exists because responsible parties within the organization don't want to follow behind the puppy cleaning up the dog poop.

If the MBA doggies had to clean up their own poop, the IT staff would be all in favor of the new projects. It's easy to be cavalier when you aren't paying the bills with YOUR time and effort.

can someone define "web2,0" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515195)

I still don't get it, so don't even get started about web 3,0 and web 4,0 either

Absolutely true (5, Interesting)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515261)

The company I work for is a VERY large tech company. We are JUST NOW starting to roll out things like Wiki and forum based support for applications, social networking software, etc. It's quite sad. I am sure this is the case in most IT departments in most large corporations. I have some theories as to why:

1) the obvious, resistance from upper management. Upper management is afraid of being "bleeding edge". New stuff, and especially open source stuff, is scary. PHBs fail to realize that the F/OSS community operates on a different set of values than corporations. Corporations only offer free stuff if it gets them good PR or creates a bunch of indentured customers. There is much FOSS that is quite viable, but it usually gets turned down in favor of proprietary crap.

2) complacent IT staff. In many large companies, the people who make decisions have promoted to their level of incompetence. In turn, they just phone it in, just do the minimum they need to do to get by. This precludes their actually learning anything new. When the decision makers are victims of FUD, what do you want?

3) red tape. Where I work, if you want to use non-standard software you have submit an exception, which then has to get approved by the people in bullet point number 2 above. It also has to get sent to upper management. Some supervisors are afraid of that and so strongly discourage you from submitting these exceptions. So people just use the same old software in the same old ways and nobody actually keeps up with the industry.

Case in point: on my intranet, AJAX use is still pretty small scale. Maybe for certain internet sites, AJAX isn't always appropriate, but on the intranet, where you can ensure that everyone is using a somewhat modern browser, it's an obvious choice for certain things. Yet, you still have people developing sites the same way sites have been developed for ten years. I use AJAX heavily, and you'd be surprised how people are still amazed by it. But now there is a push to call libraries like prototype "software" and thus make them subject to regulation and corporate standards. Standards committees cannot keep up with the industry, so you have a situation where you cannot, by decree, use anything *too* new. I can see disallowing joe service rep from installing webshots on his PC, but disallowing a developer from using his software of choice is pretty shortsighted.

Re:Absolutely true (1)

sphealey (2855) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515311)

=== 1) the obvious, resistance from upper management. Upper management is afraid of being "bleeding edge". New stuff, and especially open source stuff, is scary. PHBs fail to realize that the F/OSS community operates on a different set of values than corporations. ===
Another way to say that would be "upper management has fiduciary responsibility for the corporation, its continued existence, and its profitability".

I haven't seen much resistance to open source tools such as gcc, linux, and apache in even the largest corporations since 1998 or so. Open sourcing of ideas, the corporate message, and the corporate brand is a whole different kettle of fish.

sPh

Re:Absolutely true (1)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515415)

A very fair point you make. But upper management employs an IT department. You know, not everyone in IT just wants to spend money. Upper management should learn to trust IT, at least trustworthy factions therein. Why spend the money for an IT department if you cannot trust their judgement?

Many of the newer technologies don't really require any more time than the old ways. I can whip up a site that makes use of ajax in the same amount of time it takes someone else to cobble one toether the conventional way. And yet my app will be faster, less network intensive, and more efficient than an old skool site. There isn't much more cost and there is more benefit. The only downside is that you might need someone with fairly up to date skill sets to maintain it. So what? Its IT!

Re:Absolutely true (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515575)

So, it sounds like you are siding with the folks that went over the IT depts head. Quite frankly, it is a complete load of horseshit. WE are the ones who read Bugtraq/Slashdot/etc. At what point do you think that the IT staff lost their ability to evaluate the implications of rolling out new whiz bang bleeding edge software? The bureaucracy is in place so that the PROFESSIONALS have time to calculate the risks that end users just WONT see. This process may be convoluted in some environments, but it doesn't mean it is a bad idea. Imagine you take your car in for inspection, and the mechanic says "Your car is in need of serious work. Driving it is very likely to cause it to explode. We can't let you drive this until it is fixed" (As in, fail inspection). You get all huffy and go to the garage manager who somehow or another owes you a favor... so you drive the car home and it blows up in your face. Are you going to take responsibility? Didn't think so.

Re:Absolutely true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515681)

I have a CS degree. I live and breathe IT. I've been reading /. since just about day one (I have a low three digit ID). But at my previous company (where I worked for more than 15 years) I was not in the IT department. I was in engineering. In that role, I went over IT's head to get them to accept new technologies like ... the intranet idea (that was back in about 1994, so never mind fancy or bloated Web 2.0 stuff); Linux; load balanced compute server clusters; ...

Why do people always assume that IT-savvy and "in IT" are synonyms?

Re:Absolutely true (2, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515863)

Why do people always assume that IT-savvy and "in IT" are synonyms?

Because that IS the way it SHOULD be. Anything else is a mistake.

People are clueless... (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515265)

Not that many days ago it was an article about how our equivalent of the NSA had found sensitive information in plain sight on Facebook. The IT department don't want everyone and their mother blogging on the net because they'll also be the one getting the blame when shit hits the fan. And they'll also be the ones tasked with the impossible mission to create a magical filter that'll only let good things through and bad things not. Among several groups, the general opinion is that if they say nothing at all, they can't say anything wrong. It's not that terrible as it sounds, I'm not talking about whistleblowers here. I'm just talking about people that so desperately want to tell everyone else what they're doing. For the most part internal business is internal business and has no place in the public domain.

IT Dept and the cost-control mentality (3, Insightful)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515291)

Unfortunately, most companies see IT as a "cost" that should be minimized. Any extra expenditure for any extra features needs a champion, a proposal, a business case, documentation of ROI, prototypes, roll-out plans, risk reduction documents, etc. etc. IT departments live under this constant cost-avoidance mandate and become quite averse to anything that might create more work (= more costs) because they know they'll have jump through hoops to justify the extra cost.

If the IT department in your company is an obstacle for your job, realize that it's because the people that control the purse strings for IT (e.g., the CEO, COO, CFO, et al) don't understand that IT can provide a huge opportunity to boost productivity, revenues, and profits. But until someone goes to them with a solid business case and demonstrable ROI for whatever tech du jour, the C-level suits and the IT dept will stay in cost-avoidance (vs. opportunity-seeking) mode of management.

Goes something like this (1, Troll)

darkhitman (939662) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515309)

Management: "Hey, programmers and IT people: One of us Management people read this great article about 'Web 2.0' and how it's revolutionizing the business world; so, we want to implement a Wiki, a blog, possibly a user-driven news site, and it should all be done with... ah... *refers to napkin* A-Jax."

IT department: "But... we're a consultancy firm. We have a small client base that would never utilize any of those things, and a lot of them are on slower computers with restrictive security that would make an AJAX interface more cumbersome and generally unwan--"

Management: "STOP STANDING IN THE WAY OF WEB 2.0! YOU CAN'T SEE THE VISION!"



... Actually, that sounds a lot like my last job.

Two Words: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515319)

Elf

Bowling

Bad Start? (1)

Tadrith (557354) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515349)

As a disclaimer, here, I am not a web developer. Sometimes I have to do web development because of a project, and I can get done what I need to, but I don't enjoy it or even remotely like it. I spent most of my time doing desktop application and database development, which is where I like to be. :) I have a lot of respect for the serious web developers, compatibility and such can be a nightmare to work with in that field.

Sorry if any of this is inaccurate; let's just call it a perspective from a little bit further out.

In the beginning, we had plain standard HTML and the HTTP protocol, and it was good. That really wasn't even the true beginning, but lets start there. Gradually, everyone began to see the need to do more than just displaying pictures and text; we wanted animation, we wanted applications, we wanted interactivity. All of these are good things, in my opinion. The problem is, along the way, no clear standard really emerged on how to do these things; we got many technologies built on top of what we already had, which really wasn't particularly suitable.

Like some other internet protocols (I'm looking at you, SMTP), they were designed in the infancy of the internet, long before anyone knew what it would become, and that has exposed some security issues. The "needs" of the internet have changed, but the base of what makes the internet from a user standpoint has not. I know it will never happen due to the red tape and the amount of market force needed, but it seems like what we really need is a version 2.0 of the mid-range protocols that make up the internet, designed by an open group, with security and modern needs in mind.

It's all too much of an idealist standpoint to take hold, and trying to get everyone to switch would be extremely difficult, but one can always dream. :)

Who works for whom? (5, Insightful)

oatworm (969674) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515361)

Wow. I know this is Slashdot, but this is getting ridiculous. IT departments have one job and one job only:

Support the elements of the company that make money.

That's it. That's our job. If the elements of whatever company we're working for wants a "Web 2.0" app, instead of immediately jumping on our pedestals and saying, "Whoa there, mister! That's insecure and NEW! Put that thing away," we should instead be asking ourselves, "Hey, what problem are they trying to solve with this, and can we find a better solution?" When the employees are using Gmail or Facebook for inter-office communication, it means we're not doing our jobs, not because we're not locking down outside communication paths but because the communication paths we're providing are inadequate. When our customers start firing up MSN Messenger without our permission, we should be asking ourselves what we can use that's better, more secure, and easier to manage in an enterprise. When our customers come up to us and say, "We're tired of chasing Word docs everywhere - we're getting a wiki to manage our information", we should be looking at their problems and figuring out if a wiki is the best solution, or if they really just need a document management system.

Get it? WE are at the disposal and discretion of our coworkers, NOT the other way around.

Re:Who works for whom? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515475)

It's also generally our job to advise our superiors on the dangers of implementing technologies, and the costs involved in the implementation. AJAX is a lot easier to implement now than it was a year or two ago, but it's still tricky, complex programming, and that means it takes more time and security becomes much more important and complex in its own right.

Re:Who works for whom? (1)

oatworm (969674) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515777)

Absolutely - you'll find no argument from me here. All I'm getting at is that it's one thing to criticize, but unless we have a solution to whatever they're trying to fix, they're just going to look at us as an inflexible cost center that will be the first against the wall when the layoff revolution comes.

Re:Who works for whom? (1)

Larry Lightbulb (781175) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515745)

Unfortunately a lot of time if the elements of whatever company we're working for wants a "Web 2.0" app, then that's what they want and asking "Hey, what problem are they trying to solve with this, and can we find a better solution?" is irrelevant.

Re:Who works for whom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515867)

Please escort this heretic to the exit. Now, who let this muppet in?!

Re:Who works for whom? (2, Insightful)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515925)

You're right, but also naive and I'd guess relatively young in the industry. (Assuming, of course, that you're in "the industry.")

The single most important thing we can do in our IT jobs is to ask why?
"We need to buy some web 2.0. How much will that cost?"
"Why do we need it?"

Note that the answer is NOT "no", it is NOT "that's new and insecure." It is, to be precise, "what do you want to do and how will this technology help with it?"

The answer to so-called web 2.0 is almost invariably no because it consists of:
47% rehashed ideas.
51% marketing and management consultant bullshit.
1.6% new ideas that solely benefit vapid, angst-ridden, insecure teens.
0.4% worthwhile advances.

That means that one time in 250 that someone comes to you with a 'web 2.0' idea, it's going to be worthwhile. Actually, that number seems high. Oh well, we'll leave it.

Most of this crap is either old shit in a new wrapper, or complete self-serving hyperbole. Our jobs as professionals is to make that decision (or at least help in making it), and NOT waste valuable company resources (time, money, people, equipment) on stupid pointless ideas.

When people are using gmail or facebook for inter-office communications, we shouldn't first assume that we're doing our jobs poorly. The first thing we must ask is why. Are they doing this because the existing communication paths are inadequate? Maybe so--then we need to act. On the other hand, maybe it's because if they can justify using gmail for "work-related purposes," they can then keep flirting with that S&M submissive in Minnesota who just happens to have gmail open as well.

In fact, you nailed it perfectly in this sentence:

  • "We're tired of chasing Word docs everywhere - we're getting a wiki to manage our information", we should be looking at their problems and figuring out if a wiki is the best solution, or if they really just need a document management system.


That's precisely it: we should be bringing our expertise to the table and finding the right solution for them--proactively if possible. The real problem is that we are so often presented with a fait accompli, "we have decided on this totally inappropriate technology to solve a problem we don't have", that after a while the automatic answer is, "No. Now prove me wrong or go back to your desk."

Fast, Quick and Cheap (1)

wfs2mail.com (794623) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515381)

Some ten years ago I did some web development for a real estate company that wanted to have 3D panoramas of their listings. It had to work seamlessly (no plugins or installs), be simple enough for the brokers to update and had to work with AOL. I put the brakes on that one quicker than I can say 'Jiminy Cricket'. Mind you, this was a company where they would print out listings and rekey them to move them from computer to computer. And yes, they were networked.

Interesting (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515393)

The article almost seems to suggest that IT personnel are lazy.

Perish the thought.

De-aggregate angsty tags to IT channel-partners. (5, Interesting)

delire (809063) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515403)

Web 2.Oooh isn't a technology, a thing or even a classifiable approach to client-server engineering. It's the term given to a fad whereby users freely contribute content to increase the bankable assets of entrepreneurs that generally use impossibly complex and dubious EULA's for their own gain.

Perhaps IT staff aren't keen on implementing it because they don't buy into The Silliness. Call it "Capitalism Meets Social Engineering 2.0" and perhaps the guys in suits with MacBooks and artistic mohawks might have takers in IT.

As Mark Pilgrim so eloquently put it [diveintomark.org] :

"Praising companies for providing APIs to get your own data out is like praising auto companies for not filling your airbags with gravel. I'm not saying data export isn't important, it's just aiming kinda low. You mean when I give you data, you'll give it back to me? People who think this is the pinnacle of freedom aren't really worth listening to."
For those of you wanting to make a proverbial killing of this 'phenomenon' I refer you to a vital dictionary of terms [emptybottle.org] .

Whoosh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515627)

"Web 2.Oooh isn't a technology, a thing or even a classifiable approach to client-server engineering. It's the term given to a fad whereby users freely contribute content to increase the bankable assets of entrepreneurs that generally use impossibly complex and dubious EULA's for their own gain."

Try reading the story next time. A lot of the Web 2.0 is for internal use. That's why IT is being discussed.

"Perhaps IT staff aren't keen on implementing it because they don't buy into The Silliness. Call it "Capitalism Meets Social Engineering 2.0" and perhaps the guys in suits with MacBooks and artistic mohawks might have takers in IT."

Or, perish the thought. IT is as human as the rest of us, and either needs the benefits explained to them. Or maybe they're comfortable with the status quo and don't want anything upsetting that.

""Praising companies for providing APIs to get your own data out is like praising auto companies for not filling your airbags with gravel. I'm not saying data export isn't important, it's just aiming kinda low. You mean when I give you data, you'll give it back to me? People who think this is the pinnacle of freedom aren't really worth listening to.""

The problem with the above is that it over-simplifies. First places like Facebook and other sites (blogs, wiki's, etc) are more than just about posting data and others "getting it out" aka reading it. The data is not only presented in a way that's easy for people to deal with. Other people's data (not just yours) is presented the same way. And yes it is a good thing companies are trying these API's, because there's a risk that what they do (other than just hosting raw data) will die out, and that may not be a good thing.

Re:De-aggregate angsty tags to IT channel-partners (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20515643)

I'm not sure if Mark Pilgrim's analogy is quite fair. But it is quite funny. I can imagine the surprise of someone who finds gravel in their face instead of a comfy airbag. The thought is really quite priceless. Think about it.

Because most of them end up unmaintained (1)

Mr_Icon (124425) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515443)

Um, yeah. I am one of those "technologists" who cringes when I hear someone say "we are planning to install a wiki," because to me this roughly translates into "we're going to play with it for a couple of months, and then leave it sitting there, because something shinier will come along by then."

Me, I'm left with rotting carcases of abandoned wikis, which get rapidly taken over by free viagra lesbians.

*grumble*

Re:Because most of them end up unmaintained (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515735)

Oooh oooh oooh!!! I want some free viagra lesbians!!!

Seriously, wikis are exceedingly useful--in the right context, when administered appropriately. Then there's the other 99.6%.

Accessability (2, Informative)

jcdenhartog (840940) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515463)

I work for a government organization, and I would have to say the biggest barrier to using many of these features is accessibility. There are huge challenges in making Web 2.0 accessible, which we are required to do.

There is definitely some complacency there as well, as well as a lack of 'customer service' attitude, but in the case of Web 2.0, why bother if it takes so much effort or is almost impossible to make it WCAG and Section 508 compliant.

Barrier to Web 2.0 - Reality (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515467)

Web 2.0 just doesn't exist... no one seems able to give a definition of exactly when Web 2.0 did, or will, start. Instead it seems like it will forever be "just over the horizon".

This too shall pass (1)

frisket (149522) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515541)

> resistance inside companies from [...] the IT staff.

That's because they know it's a passing fad, and will be superseded by Web 3.0 or whatever, and they don't have the resources to commit to projects that are not going to contribute to persistence and durability.

Of course, if their source data were in a persistent and durable format to start with, it wouldn't matter so much, because engineering a Web 2.0 interface wouldn't create structures that would inhibit subsequent interfaces.

10,000 member IT department. (2, Insightful)

ephedream (899351) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515555)

He added that he began his Web 2.0 quest by working closely with the company's 10,000-member IT department. "Nothing gets done without the IT department," he noted.

Wow! 10,000 member IT department!! That's a bloody legion of IT workers!
No wonder they had resistance to change, their bureaucracy is simply huge. Are the 10,000 geeks serving 10 million workers? A huge company that must be!
--

P.S. It looks like this web page changed its text when I loaded it a 2nd time. What's up with that? It think someone edited it.

Newsflash (1)

tacokill (531275) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515587)

Uninformed users request features that they neither understand nor are qualified to implement. IT says no.

News at 11.

Corporate cement heads... (1)

pigiron (104729) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515619)

discover computer bulletin boards! Will wonders never cease?

What is a Web 2.0 tool? (2, Interesting)

Fizzlewhiff (256410) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515667)

The article didn't really give an examples other than 1000 people signed up for LinkedIn to prove a point.

I work in IT and we occasionally get requests from the business to do something in PHP, MySql and AJAX and they have no idea what they are even talking about other than they see it mentioned in a magazine article or a blog somewhere so they think they need everything done in PHP and MySql. These are the same people who think that if an icon isn't on their desktop the application isn't on their computer.

Forget it (2, Informative)

Trailwalker (648636) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515789)

One of several recent hacks at Pfizer [computerworlduk.com]

IT departments have learned caution the hard way.

No Brainer. Shows GNU Demand is User Driven. (2, Insightful)

Erris (531066) | more than 7 years ago | (#20515885)

What, the same people who put Windoze on desktops and increasingly into the server room don't like Wikis and other very cool free programs? Shocker. There are plenty of exceptions, like the CIA, but Windows inertia is a good part of this problem and established IT departments are something that have to be circumvented to get things done. The solution is radical removal of the problem. Doing that removes all sorts of networking problems and frees up staff for productive use. It's sad that users have to push this kind of change onto the IT departments instead of the other way around.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?