File talk:Internet Key Layers.png

make the asterisk strike

to paraphrase,

the Search Engine layer is marked with an asterisk (*). But if the asterisk cannot be found by a user, then this is indistinguishable from that asterisk not existing, from the perspective of that user.

currently the asterisk is so low-contrast practically noone would notice it. it is better to make clear that search engines are actually non-critical and thus so much lesser in importance compared with something like the network layer.

so please make that asterisk high contrast and keep it big.

Your point is duly noted. Please, now, consider the reason why the asterisk was printed in such a low contrast:

When was the last time you used the internet without doing a search?

How long a stretch have you gone without doing a search?

Do you know a single person who uses the internet without using a search engine?

It is a very fine point that the internet can be used without engaging in a search function, because in the overwhelming majority of practical usage, SEARCH is a necessity.

If anyone would like to present a case that search is unnecessary from a practical usage standpoint, please let us know.

If we want to be hardcore, the BROWSER layer would be marked with an asterisk as being unnecessary. Then we'd be faced with the question of how bright you would want that asterisk to be.--Concord hioz (留言) 09:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

To start with, and refute your last point: browser should be more accurately named User agent, but is otherwise correctly presented as a layer. Search, however, is not a layer in the same sense that the other items are in this infographic, and as such, is misleading.

To answer one of your (presumably rhetorical) questions: I access content on the world wide web through a browser (or user agent), but without a using search many times a day, as I suspect you do too. Search engines are merely an application of the WWW, a specific type of content, and as such, should be represented as part of that layer.

I went to this page to link someone to the Function section for further reading, and I immediately facepalmed as I saw this graphic. It's misleading and should be updated.

Another, very minor point of inconsistency: search engine is not pluralised. 94.208.144.176 23:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am only now seeing your post.

I'll address your last point first, as it is the most straightforward. The rationale behind singular/plural terminology was provided in the description:

"Layers are labeled in the plural when a multitude of elements exist within that layer, versus just one (such as one Internet) or only several (as with search engines)."

There are many people who see Google to be a de facto monopoly.

As for your criticism about Search being listed as a Layer, what you have articulated are the reasons why it is listed with an asterisk. It "is not a layer in the same sense that the other items are". We are in total agreement on that point.

Now for the justification... Perhaps it would be good to use an analogy. Remember Card Catalogs that libraries used to have? It was not necessary to have these in order to find a book you were looking for. But you could end up walking around the stacks all day and not find your book. Because of this problem, Card Catalogs were seen to be a vital element.

Internet Search can be seen in a similar light. You can randomly poke around the web all day long. But if you want to go straight to what you are looking for, you will use a search engine. Because of how this makes the internet so much more usable than without it, this has been offered as the rationale for including it as a vital layer.

Your other point about how you see "User Agent" to be more accurate than "Browser", I don't follow your reasoning. I see the term User Agent to be too general. When the term Browser is used, no one is left with any question about what is being referred to. It is perfectly clear. And I see it to be perfectly accurate.--Concord hioz (留言) 08:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

HyperCard

In case anyone is wanting further explanation for why HyperCard is listed as the major milestone for Content, I recommend this talk by Ian Ritchie on how Apple's HyperCard, which followed his own company's hypertext software lead, was a key step toward the internet that we have today:

Ian Ritchie: The day I turned down Tim Berners-Lee (TED Talk, posted Oct 12, 2011)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz77x05rySc&t=172

There are other excellent references as well. An ideal one would be where TBL explains how he himself was inspired by HyperCard when creating HTML. Of course, arguments can be made for listing something else as a key milestone that got us to today's web content. HTML is one obvious candidate, as had been listed in the earlier version of this chart. Another candidate would be TBL's own ENQUIRE.

But the rationale behind listing HyperCard is because of the magnitude of its impact. In the video link above, Ritchie explains how his company Owl came out with the world's first hypertext system, called Guide. And it was way back in 1980 that TBL came out with ENQUIRE. Notice how the Apple II was not the world's first home computer. But it was a landmark achievement that proved to be a gamechanger. This is the type of impact that HyperCard had with creating content for users. It was not the first hypermedia, but it was revolutionary in what it did for the Mac community.

The other argument for listing HyperCard and removing HTML is because the World Wide Web is given adequate recognition in the middle layer. It could easily be argued that TBL was being given too much recognition in having his name listed twice in a very short list of people who helped to accomplish major milestones of an invention that was the product of hundreds if not thousands of inventors.

One 'casualty' here is Robert Cailliau. His name had been listed as a key contributer for the invention of HTML. But his name no longer appears in the most recent version of this chart. The question then becomes whether it would be best to include his name alongside TBL's in the WWW layer? The decision was made to leave TBL's name as a standalone. This is mainly because his leadership in the invention of the World Wide Web was singular. And this goes way back to his efforts with ENQUIRE.

It would be like if Wilbur Wright had the drive to build an airplane, and by himself mapped out the plan to do so. The after years of effort had gone by, his brother decides to stop tinkering with bicycles and help Wilbur out by covering the wood-sparred wings with canvas. If that had been how the airplane came to be, then it would be appropriate to list the inventor of the airplane as Wilbur Wright, and leave his brother's name for an area that gave more detail about the story. Perhaps a bad analogy. But that's the rationalization behind the decision.--Concord hioz (留言) 04:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

poor image

this image is poor, and sorry but seems to emphasise USA contributions and marginalise others. The first / major / well known search engine was not Google. Yahoo/Altavista and even AOL were huge search engines before Google. It's not a "major milestone". Computers were not invented in the 70s and Jobs and Wozniak were not the inventors of computers, or even major milestones of computers.

If this image was created by a "tech" website, then I could forgive it. But this is so inaccurate it serves no place here....

Please remove it. Or update it so it's not USA-did-everything .. and has actual facts and real "milestones". — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.255.234.173 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Addressing criticisms point by point:

1) National bias skewed to favor the USA.

Emphasis on milestones happening in the USA is offered as an accurate representation of what actually happened.

With the invention of the computer, several people could be singled out. This chart shows Conrad Zuse, a German working in Berlin, as having prominence in that milestone. WWW milestone lists Tim Berners-Lee, an English person working in Switzerland. For the "first wave", a strong argument can be made that Belgian Paul Otlet deserves to be listed. Consideration was given to doing that. And the reason this was rejected is because it would be like listing Charles Babbage of England under the "first wave" milestone for Computers. Otlet and Babbage were deemed to be too far ahead of their time. Like if you were to list a "first wave" milestone for the Airplane and were pressed to list one name, that name would be Wright. And Da Vinci would get bumped off the chart as himself being too far ahead of his time. Now if anyone were to press for Otlet & Babbage being listed due to a primary motivation that these two were not from the USA, I would warn against doing that because I would see that as a corruption of the integrity of the chart. If anyone can present a persuasive argument for listing any non-Americans as being more worthy than the names selected, then I'd be glad to make the appropriate changes. For that matter, if the suggested replacement is an American, I'd be glad to make that change as well. But if the push were to be to include a woman or black person in this chart just because they were the most significant woman or black person, then I would advise against that kind of change for exactly the same reasons given regarding nationalism above.

2) Google was not the first major or well know search engine.

This chart never presents Google as being first. The column is clearly titled as being a "milestone". The criteria as explained in the Summary focuses on the significance, and that is not necessarily the size nor is it a matter of being biggest. You can be the largest manufacturer of, say, square tires, absolutely dominating the square tire market, but when a couple of grad students come up with the idea of round tires, it matters not that they are peons of the industry working out of their garage. "Backrub" was the "hey let's try making tires round" gamechanger when it came to internet search. Everyone who was alive and on the web in 1998 knows full well what the situation was. Internet search was atrocious. Google solved that.

3) Computers were not invented in the 1970s, and Jobs & Wozniak did not achieve any major milestone.

Granted, computers were invented long before the 70s. And even just within the realm of personal computing, Wozniak & Jobs were very late to the game, with the Apple I being released SIX YEARS after the Datapoint 2200. But there is a very important reason why Woz & Jobs have their names listed under that milestone and not Gus Roche & Phil Ray. This is along the lines of why if this chart were about cars, it would be Henry Ford's name listed there and not someone like Gottlieb Daimler. The significance of this milestone is not merely that a computer was built small enough so that it fit on top of a desk. It was the efficiency of the design so that it could be easily affordable. The milestone year here was 1977. And Apple was only one of the three "game changers" introduced that year. The Commodore PET and the Radio Shack TRS-80 coming out alongside the Apple II was a milestone that would have been like if two other car companies came out with cheap and reliable cars in 1908 alongside the Ford Model T. The Apple II had distinctive quality advantages over its competition, such as a color display and a quiet fanless case enabled by a switching power supply. Apple was chosen here for the milestone it accomplished in the 70s, and if the company had gone under in the 90s and disappeared, that would have had no bearing on the choice of it over Commodore and Radio Shack.

A strong argument could be made that a better year to list here would be 1977, the "year of the Trinity". The reason why this was backed up to '76 is because once Apple was judged to be more significant than Commodore and Radio Shack within that "Trinity", from there it could be argued that the Apple I was a breakthrough computer in itself. It would be like if Henry Ford had come out with a really cheap car in 1907, requiring customers to do the final assembly themselves and the vehicle would have only a fraction of the range and carrying capacity of the Model T. And it is hard for me to reconstruct the exact decision process, but a strong argument could be made that the Apple I as a predecessor to the Apple II is a significant factor when selecting Apple over Commodore and Radio Shack in the first place.

4) "this is so inaccurate" ... "Please remove it. Or update it so it's not USA-did-everything"

I myself do not see any inaccuracies at all in the chart. "Milestone" is a broadly defined term. Surely arguments can be made that there are better candidates regarding who should be listed. I would be glad to consider any specific proposed changes toward improvement. Whichever specific names are determined to be the best to list here, the chart serves a very important purpose. It is not intended to be a definitive summary of the history of the internet boiled down to one page. It serves to present a general idea of how the internet is structured, and it gives a handful of names with key developments that can go a long way as being a starting point of comprehension for anyone interested in this subject.

My own bottom line here...

If anyone were to say "This chart is in need of improvement", then I'd be eager to consider any and all specific suggestions on how that can be done. But if this were to be removed simply because someone objects to a lack of multi-nationalism, or some other perceived inaccuracies, it would be a loss for the typical reader, those who come to Wikipedia because they are interested in learning about this topic. This chart presents names and terms that can serve to be excellent jumping off points for any reader wanting to dive in deeper. And for anyone who feels that other nations are not properly represented, or the lack of women and minorities for that matter, please present the argument for consideration. Or just give a name, without presenting any support. I'd be happy to look into it myself.--Concord hioz (留言) 08:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not the original comment ip, and my biggest concern with this image is not a nationalistic view, but a bit of the arbitrarily of the components and milestones chosen, at least the description seems to include a quite amount of original compilation. While I don't think in general images have to be non-original research, this is mostly text/summary of a topic that states (apparently) factual information. I would like to see it based on non-original research (e.g. a state of the art article, for example) so, even if it is -and cannot be ever perfect- at least it is a piece of information "according to classification done by <X wildly credited source>", where its biases -if any- can be checked, be it an American-focused one, or a different one. I don't think the image has to be deleted or removed from articles, but I think it can be significantly improved by choosing the layers and milestones from a specific source or set of sources. For example, the OSI Model is a well-known model for communications layers; "Internet Key layers" is something for which I cannot find any sources for beyond this image. --jynus (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

My point is when someone comes and asks, "why did you chose X instead of Y", the answer should be: "because I based this classification on Z (or these multiple things), if you disagree, make a different one based on other sources". Otherwise this may lead to multiple versions and updates, as well as disagreements. --jynus (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I only now saw your post.

It appears that there are other editors who feel the same way you do. If you go to the article on the Internet, that "UDP encapsulation" image is the only explanation that readers are presented with today on how the layers of the interrnet are structured. What I seem to recall is that when this "Internet Key layers" image was first posted, it was added to that article and several others. So it appears that a consensus decision has been made to remove it. I was not involved in that decision. I suggest to you that the average reader has been given an inferior article because of that decision.

Say that it is possible to create the image according to the process you see to be best. Well great. I'm all for it. Let's see it. But no one has done that. The image which the average reader can understand has been removed, and all they're given today is this image that attempts to explain the layers involved in the protocol. When the average reader looks up that article, what percentage are interested in that aspect of the internet? My own guess would be less than 10%. And of this fraction, whatever the actual number might be, what percentage can actually make sense of what that layer image is attempting to communicate to them? I know of at least on person with several college degrees, including a degree in Electrical Engineering who cannot make sense of it. The caption does not shed all that much light onto what is trying to be communicated. And so the vast majority of people leave that article having taken away absolutely no explanation of the layers of the internet. Not an explanation that makes sense to them. And here my estimate would be GREATER THAN 99% of readers.

And this is where the current image here has significant potential to play a role in doing the job of an encyclopedia. Communicating information. As that article stands, this is not being done. Anyone trying to grasp how their browser in front of them interacts with another computer at some other node on the web is left without a visual explanation of the layers involved.

I understand the objection you are raising. And my response without hesitation is... Do it! That would be great. Because as that article stands now, readers are getting zilch. I gave my best effort, and someone decided to remove it. And nothing was added to fill the vacuum. Or perhaps they saw this "UDP encapsulation" image to be sufficient in what it tells the average reader about internet layers. To me, the article is GARBAGE. On that one point, that is, in readers seeking out that article with a desire to understand this basic aspect, and they come up empty. In my view, that article will be greatly enhanced if this Key Layers image were to be re-added.

I would encourage you to create an image to give readers this info. No one else is doing it. I see it to be a vacuum that needs to be filled. -- Concord hioz (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)