If you didn’t blink, you may have noticed that for a few days recently Wikipedia’s entry for Web 2.0 included a subsection describing the visual elements of Web 2.0. Gradients, colorful icons, reflections, dropshadows, and large text all got a mention.

A few days later the “visual elements” addition had been removed after a vote by wikipedians. The objection, I suppose, is that no set of visual criteria can accurately define something as being characteristic of Web 2.0 – if Web 2.0 can be understood as an approach to generating and distributing content, then it needn’t be tied to a particular visual style.

Nevertheless, it’s true that many Web 2.0 sites do share a distinctive aesthetic. Wikipedia’s editors may not think it’s a worthy part of the Web 2.0 discussion, but I say bring it on! Let’s take a look at the some of the communication issues facing a Web 2.0 site, and see how the “Web 2.0 look” can help to solve them.

Trust me, I’m Web 2.0 Integral to Web 2.0 is harnessing the input of website visitors. Users can generate content for a web service, promote it in a “viral” peer-to-peer fashion, and improve it’s data quality through their opinions and preferences.

But to convince a visitor to contribute their time – and data – to a web application, you need to get them to trust you first. Most Web 2.0 sites come across as friendly, approachable and small-scale, using subtle design decisions to gain our trust.

Green is the new grey Bright, cheerful colors dominate Web 2.0 sites. Green is the unofficial color of web 2.0, but saturated blues, oranges and pinks are also favorites. Bold primary colors suggest a playful, fun attitude and also help to draw attention to important page elements.

Rounded everything New CSS techniques for achieving rounded corners have helped make this style hot again. The friendliness of rounded corners is in keeping with the comfortable, informal tone of many web 2.0 sites.

Keep it simple stupid Most Web 2.0 applications add an additional technological or organizational layer to the user’s web experience. Be it managing links with del.icio.us, sharing photos with flickr, or organizing tasks with Backpack, we have to familiarize ourselves with a new technological process and devote time to managing our content. A good Web 2.0 app ought to be lightweight and easy for users to grasp, and clever visual design and copywriting can help remove barriers to entry.

Smart use of layout, color, type and copy can go a long way towards easing the pain.

Big is beautiful As far as Web 2.0 is concerned, bigger is definitely better. Bigger text, that is. Large text is easy on the eye, and coupled with snappy copywriting makes information easy to absorb. And now that accessibility is cool, it’s possible to be a hotshot web designer and use enormous type. Admittedly this craze for giant text strays too far into Jacob Nielsen territory for my taste – when a web page’s body text is set at larger than 13 point it looks like a “learning to read” book to me!

Breathing space The layout of Web 2.0 sites might be described as minimal. With a focus on legibility and ease of use, good use is made of white space. White space allows important information to stand apart, provides rest for the eye, and imparts a sense of calm and order. Generous leading also makes text copy easier for the eye to follow. Some Web 2.0 layouts are so minimal that they verge on boring, but designed well, an uncluttered page can be incredibly tasteful.

Odds and ends There are a couple of visual tendencies amongst Web 2.0 sites that don’t seem to answer a particular design problem, but deserve a mention nonetheless. The ‘wet table’ look, ’starbursts’ (also known as ‘flashes’ or ‘violators’), and ‘glass’ buttons, provide a lot of Web 2.0’s eye candy. Apple’s marketing department sure has a lot to answer for.