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. -Charles On Jun 23, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wil...@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<d...@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett >> >> > >
