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<d...@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett > >
