Yahoo! Widgets - Blog

So, which Widget platform should you use?.

The simple answer to that question is “it depends”.

What are you trying to accomplish? How much (or little) power do you need? Will it be a web-only Widget, or will it run on the desktop? Do you have existing code you want (or need) to reuse? All of these factors can influence your decision.

Highlighted by cbajgier

There are two major categories of Widgets: web Widgets and desktop Widgets. Web Widgets run inside a web page and are also known as “modules” or “badges”. Web Widgets allow anyone to create their own website “mash-ups” by embedding content from one site into a page on another site. These types of Widgets are completely based on browser technologies — HTML, Flash, etc. And while they have been around in various forms for a while, the use of the term “Widget” to refer to these web page modules is relatively new. Widget has (at least since Konfabulator’s introduction) conventionally meant a desktop-based mini-application that shows discrete information, often connected to the Internet.

Highlighted by cbajgier

The advantages of a desktop Widget over a web Widget include:

• Lives outside of the browser
• Access to local resources
• Potential for offline use & background downloading
• Greater interaction with the rest of the system through standard desktop interaction.

Highlighted by cbajgier

Apple Dashboard / Microsoft Windows Vista Sidebar

The Apple/Microsoft approach can be very appealing. By using their native browsers, these companies could build a Widget engine without having to invent anything new.

Pros:

• If you have existing code for a web page, it’s fairly easy to adjust it to run in these Widget environments.
• You can use special objects in Javascript to get at the underlying system.
• DHTML is easy to learn and work with.
• You can take existing AJAX libraries and use them right off the shelf.
• There are many HTML authoring tools available. Apple has a brand-new DashCode IDE for writing Dashboard widgets, which is actually pretty slick (and mercifully not related to my arch-nemesis, XCode).

Cons:

• Each Widget is a full-on web page, and can take a significant amount of system resources.
• Strong ties to the OS. While this has some advantages, the downside is that Apple’s widgets will only run on Macs and Microsoft’s gadgets will only run on Vista.

Google Desktop Gadgets

Google is currently using custom XML file and object model. Their object model is not based on W3C standards, but is their own custom creation.

Pros:

• Fairly easy to understand if you know HTML.
• Not constrained by HTML model.
• Can use either Javascript or Visual Basic.
• Better platform ties: drag/drop support, etc.
• You can use their Gadget Designer development tool to aid in writing your gadget.
• Not very resource intensive.

Cons:

• Still fairly limited in its abilities compared to other engines, particularly in the presentation layer.
• Interface is filled with update flashes and jerky motions. This is somewhat out of place in today’s world of the highly polished Mac OS X and Vista interfaces.
• Requires download of entire Google Desktop package to run.
• In its current form, positioned as more of a consumer product than a platform for developers. So, it’s more like developing a plug-in for someone else’s product than creating your own experience.
• No Mac OS X support

Yahoo! Widgets (nee Konfabulator)

We also use an XML file format and a home-grown rendering engine. In the past, our object model was not W3C standards-based, but over time we’ve been creeping in that direction. I believe this helps us get more traction from those who are familiar with DHTML programming.

Pros :

• Largest addressable audience. We’re the only cross-OS Widgets platform — Mac OS X, Win 2000, Win XP, and now Windows Vista.
• We are not hamstrung by web standards (although we adopt them when possible, e.g XMLHttpRequest). This gives us flexibility to produce Widgets and platform features that truly take advantage of the desktop.
• Easy to write for. While we aren’t as familiar as DHTML, we are just as easy to code for. Our API is less “techie” than other offerings, making it more accessible to more people.
• Powerful design, animation, and interaction facilities — based on 5 years of developer feedback.
• Slick tie-ins with the platforms we run on — features like drag and drop, open and save dialogs, etc.
• Much more application-like environment than DHTML or Google gadgets. It’s easy to write Widgets with multiple windows, for example. DHTML engines can create new windows on the fly, but each window is its own little HTML world. In contrast, all of the windows can see one another in our Widgets, so sharing information across windows is easy. A good example of this in action is our Picture Frame Widget when you are managing your Flickr photos.

Cons:

• You need to learn our XML language vs. DHTML, so it’s marginally less accessible to those who already know DHTML.
• Since we don’t own an OS, our platform requires a one-time download of components. We’re working on making this much more streamlined.
• To be frank, our current version (3.1) consumes a fair bit of resources. We hear this feedback loud and clear from our developers and users, and I think they will like what they see in our upcoming release.
• Lack of video support.

Highlighted by cbajgier

Yahoo! Widgets is cross platform and has the most desktop Widgets available over 4,000 across all OS’s). You can write your Widget once and reach the largest possible audience.

Highlighted by cbajgier