Re: [widget] technology/specification name

Part of the issue is that its a fairly generic technology that can be applied to areas including:

- Browser extensions
- Installable web apps 
- Desktop widgets
- Site gadgets
- TV/STB widgets
- Mobile webapps

I think the name "widgets" came from the heritage of Opera Widgets, Nokia Widgets, Apple Dashboard Widgets (etc). Personally I don't think its all that bad as a name, but I don't feel especially attached to it either. If there is a better option, lets go for it.

On the other hand, if there are barriers to adoption other than branding, lets address them. Unfortunately, I suspect a fair amount of it is just NIH syndrome.


On 23 Jun 2011, at 17:26, Dave Raggett wrote:

> In the webinos project [1] we are using installed vs hosted web apps.
> On 23/06/11 15:58, Karl Dubost wrote:
>> I do not want to start a name bikeshedding.
>> The name doesn't bother me so far, but I have seen that comment again and again.
>>     On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:06:24 GMT
>>     In Bruce Lawson’s personal site : Installable web apps and interoperability
>>     At
>>     Installable apps (in W3C parlance, Widgets – which
>>     is a terrible name) allow authors to write apps
>>     using HTML(5), CSS, JavaScript, SVG etc, and
>>     package them up into a glorified Zip file with
>>     some configuration details which can then be
>>     installed on a computer.
>> It seems that "extensions" or "addons" would be more cognitively connected with Web developers.
>>     y'know, so terrible is the W3C “Widgets” name
>>     that I didn't even think it referred to the
>>     same thing as Chrome’s apps, et al.
>>     —
> [1]
> -- 
> Dave Raggett<>

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 18:18:18 UTC