- From: JC Verdié <jc.verdie@mstarsemi.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:56:46 +0200
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- CC: JC Verdié <jc.verdie@mstarsemi.com>, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Marcos, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > On Monday, July 22, 2013 at 9:16 AM, JC Verdié wrote: > >> Hi Daniel >> >> While widgets were (unfortunately) not widely adopted, a few companies >> (including mine) are using it and it does the job for many simple >> issues. It's true that the complexity of the spec vs the service >> provided was not really a good deal. > > As editor, I'm interested about the complexity aspect of widgets (aside from digital signatures, what other complexities have been faced?). Can you provide some more details about that? Obviously, we want to avoid similar issues with the packaged apps and hosted apps efforts. Obviously as you point out, digsig were a nightmare. May be it was us, but the spec was not really straightforward to implement and we found it difficult. On widgets itself, our main issue came from our own constraints (TV browser with no chrome ui), it lead to some inconsistencies to handle to overall UX. For instance, the impossibility to handle user events on a global level so that buttons used for exit or any immediate actions are not caught up by the widget, but by the "root" application. We hacked in several ways to achieve this but it was a disappointing point. I guess what I'm saying is we missed a wider view of how widgets are handled, run, die, and interact with the browser itself. Despite this, it's been very useful to us and we have deployed many solutions based on it, so anything that keeps compatibility with widgets is good to us Regards JC
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 12:57:26 UTC