Cross-platform widgets: fact or fiction?

Brian Dillard, Wednesday, August 15, 2007 @ 5:30 am

For such a simple idea, widgets (or "gadgets" or "modules" or - ugh - "badges") are ridiculously complicated. Take three basic web technologies (XHTML, CSS and JavaScript), wrap them in a fourth (XML), and you should have a really simple, powerful way of deploying a platform-independent UI for your remote data. Yet between Yahoo Widgets, OS X Dashboard, Google Gadgets, Vista Sidebar, Netvibes Widgets and the umpteen other flavors out there, broad deployment is time- and cost-prohibitive. Pretty much every major implementation is incompatible with the others. Often, a single vender offers multiple overlapping versions of its platform, such as Google Desktop vs. iGoogle and Windows Live vs. Vista Sidebar. I'm all for healthy competition and the innovation it produces, but couldn't each big player at least release a unified API for all of its properties?

Amid all of this chaos, what's a would-be widget author to do? Probably the same things as widget users: weigh the options and pick a side. True, the WC3 is beavering away on a standards spec, but we all know how long that's going to take. By the time anything gets signed off on, the fad will either have died out or, perhaps worse, have become a long-term part of the web ecosystem. Imagine hundreds of thousands of legacy widgets written in proprietary formats, a huge number of which will never get refactored to meet the standards. And that's assuming the various widget platform vendors even agree to sign on. It's easy to imagine Google jumping on board, but much harder to hope the folks in Redmond will follow suit. Who knows about the other players?

True, tools have sprung up to translate certain types of widgets into certain other types. But these are stopgap solutions with often unpredictable results. Even when the widgets work, they often don't look pretty in their new homes. And nobody yet has come close to a write-once, run-anywhere SDK for widgets. Translation is the best option the marketplace has produced.

That said, I'm keeping an eye on UWA, the new Netvibes "Universal Widget API." This is another translation methodology, but instead of a third-party application that performs a one-way port of an existing widget, it's an actual spec for authoring widgets once and then compiling them to the various platforms. Thus far it mainly supports Netvibes itself, iGoogle and Dashboard. But Vista support is on the roadmap, and Yahoo support has been discussed. Best of all, they're planning to open-source it. If this API ends up being halfway as useful as it promises, perhaps it will offer a good middle path while the official standard takes shape.

[Lest I end on a completely hopeful note, here's a somewhat related digression: I'm also often depressed by the way the aforementioned standard web technologies get used in widgets. To a certain extent, pretty much all of the widget platforms force you to develop kludgy code. iGoogle and other Web-based platforms scale their widgets based on the size of the browser window. Some developers spend the time to come up with intelligent liquid layouts, but the limitations of fixed-height iframe wrappers make design compromises inevitable. A lot of the third-party widget-assembly shops just slap together some fixed-width design based on the worst-case scenario and built the entire interface out of a sliced-up PSD file. Forget font-scaling and other basic accessibility considerations. It's like the 640x480 viewport all over again, but in miniature. The more things change...]

agile ajax

Comments: 3 so far

• Leave a comment
• Comment feed for this post
• TrackBack URL

1. 

   sadds

   Comment by df, Wednesday, August 15, 2007 @ 11:40 am

2. 

   With Yahoo, Apple, MS and Google pushing their own development systems (and lock-in APIs) it’s hard to see how NetVibes can compete on the authoring front.

   Another solution is to approach the problem from another angle: instead of creating a universal development platform, creating a universal deployment platform:

   http://www.amnestywidgets.com/Hypercube.html

   Comment by Libby, Wednesday, August 15, 2007 @ 12:38 pm

3. 

   Well, XHTML, is already by nature XML as long as it is validly served as the mime type application/xhtml+xml.

   Great Article!!! I think its something we will see in the future, not sure how long it will take for people to bite the bullet and just except some standards!!! ya know!

   Comment by Joseph, Thursday, November 8, 2007 @ 12:03 pm

Leave a comment