Difference between revisions of "Web2.0"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
User-centric approach to a web application. The accumulated data that such an approach gathers might be better managed in separate user area - the user has their own area of the database. | User-centric approach to a web application. The accumulated data that such an approach gathers might be better managed in separate user area - the user has their own area of the database. | ||
| − | * The [http://beta.richtags.net/ Richtags project] have produced a wonderful interface to multiple repositories to facilitate social interaction. | + | * The [http://beta.richtags.net/ Richtags project] have produced a wonderful interface to multiple EPrints repositories to facilitate social interaction. |
* Connotea (Nature) already has an established EPrints user interface component | * Connotea (Nature) already has an established EPrints user interface component | ||
Revision as of 16:40, 13 December 2007
Outcomes from the Web 2.0 Pow-wow 13th December 2007
User-centric approach to a web application. The accumulated data that such an approach gathers might be better managed in separate user area - the user has their own area of the database.
- The Richtags project have produced a wonderful interface to multiple EPrints repositories to facilitate social interaction.
- Connotea (Nature) already has an established EPrints user interface component
- ULCC has the SNEEP project and the Linnaean society repository. They have been developing comments and bookmarking facilities.
- The EDSPACE project is developing a user-centric approach to learning object repository.
- The FARAOES project are developing a repository user interface that follows the best-practice principles of Web 2.0 sites
