W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [widget] technology/specification name

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:28:18 -0700
Message-Id: <B5179502-CA5B-4982-B2F2-58678479AB41@jumis.com>
Cc: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
To: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
One issue which comes up is that widget is also used in ARIA to describe ui elements.

I suspect we'll see apps used ubiquitously; widget seems to e reserved to early experiments in linked apps; apps via iframe.

Like many on this thread, I don't have a strong objection against the name. I rather appreciate the thread, it's bringing out more distinctions as to what we're talking about and targeting.


On Jun 23, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> S
> 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 http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2011/installable-web-apps-and-interoperability/
>>>    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.
>>>    — http://twitter.com/nevali/status/83866541388603392
>> [1] http://webinos.org/
>> -- 
>> Dave Raggett<dsr@w3.org>  http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 23:28:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:20 UTC