Mashups still for developers only

On Lauren Cooney’s weblog she rights:

I’ve been talking to lots of folks lately about Enterprise 2.0 and mashups. Although many companies, such as Yahoo, Google, BEA, MSFT, and IBM are trying to bring these technologies to the masses, the tools and applications are still too sophisticated for a “regular” Web 2.0 user who is, say, familiar with Facebook or Twitter. Most users have to have some sort of development experience to actually use these tools to their full ability. For example, we still see folks at the marketing and sales levels struggling to use Pipes or Google Mashup Editor, as well as some of our own tools, to create mashups for enterprise (or even individual) use.

Well, I tried to comment on her blog instead but my comments were apparently so bad they kept getting marked as spam so my comment will go here instead…

I just wanted to agree with the fact that many of the mashup technologies are still a bit developer centric (but kudos to the work IBM is doing to try to break these barriers).  I think one of the challenges is that we ‘IT and enterprise 2.0 users’ are used to systems that cover a wide range of functions servicing LOB users and business analysts as Lauren categorized them (like ERP or large footprint data warehouses and heavy BI tools).  These same systems often dictate processes instead of allowing the user to be creative and vary the solution directly — one of the most powerful traits of Web 2.0 and mashing.

Perhaps, what is required is to create smaller solutions where thoughtful interface design and given problem spaces can drive valuable mashup solutions that do empower a user without trying to cover the waterfront?  Maybe these solutions still exist on the more ‘complicated’ frameworks but the user gains better control at the front-end of the conversation = more success and adption.  I may be off here but the simplicity of FaceBook applications lend to increased organic growth and even with the enterprise facing more complex issues perhaps there is a clue in the simplicity.

Or – as we believe at Zua Scene should semantics have a broader role in trying to fill the gap of the explicit type of mash decisions that a Pipes or a DAMIA require – reducing the burden on the user to know how things need to come together.  I think Intel’s Mash Maker helps us think along these lines.