You've said it yourself:
Quote:
I'm using the term "Web 2.0 design" to describe the prevailing style of web design I introduce in my current style article.
Many people use the term "Web 2.0" to describe:
* a resurgence in the web economy
* a new level of technological interactivity between web sites and services
* or social phenomena deriving from new types of online communities and social networks
Many others also use the term in reference to a recent school of web design. I'm comfortable with using it in that context here.
|
I'll agree that the design elements you describe are inherit in web design today, but to label them as web 2.0 style is misleading at best. These factors change over time and may in fact be down to: current design trends generally, innovations in software etc.
Many of those you outline relate to the increased 'better design' of the internet and are based on
function dictating style.
These are as much about making clear accessible design than a 'style' : simplicity, central layout, less columns, separate top sections, solid areas of screen real-estate, simple navigation, bolder logos, bigger text and stronger colours
These are about design trends moving to the web: gradients, reflections, cute icons and star flashes
You've outlined some key design elements, which will make any site look better designed and fit next to web 2.0 stuff, but this does not make a site web 2.0.