Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet

Google Adds Widgets to Homepage 200

Posted by CmdrTaco from the thats-the-clever-stuff dept.
Panaphonix writes "Google announced that their personalized homepage now has an API for developers to add their own modules. Samples are available in this directory."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Adds Widgets to Homepage More

Google Adds Widgets to Homepage

Comments Filter:

  • You have to give Google some props.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 8127972 ( 73495 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:22AM (#14255664)
    ..... for how easy creating these apps happens to be. If I were still teaching, I would likely use this as a means to teach basic programming skills. They also have something else going for them excellent documentation that is easily understood by my wife who is a non geek. To top it all off, it's using HTML, XML, and Javascript. Three open and accessible languages that are widely used on a variety of platforms.

    Methinks that one of the reasons behind this is that they want to "embrace and extend." Sound familiar?

    • Copying live.com (Score:2, Insightful)

      by badriram ( 699489 )
      Oh please, lets stop that praises, and call this what it is, a copy/rip off of Microsoft live.com gadgets.....

      • Copying Dashboard (Score:3, Insightful)

        by adpowers ( 153922 )
        Come on now. Don't go the Microsoft route. Microsoft blatantly ripped of Apple's Dashboard. Anyone in their right mind would know that Apple was the One True inventor of widgets. ;)

        • Re:Copying Dashboard (Score:3, Interesting)

          by badriram ( 699489 )
          Apple did not use gadgets online, sure, we could say konfabulator was there first, then someone else will say apple had small applications like clock.....

          However we are not talking you desktop here, we are talking hosting a small web widget on one server, and loading it on another webpage.... IMHO a much better concept than just desktop widgets.

          • Re:Copying Dashboard (Score:3, Informative)

            by adpowers ( 153922 )
            Well, I was just trying to copy the trend. I was hoping someone would rebuttal me with Konfabulator. (hence the winking)

            I must admit, there are a bunch of advantages of having these hosted on a server. First, Google gives you a method to easily request webpages (so you don't have to worry about the quirks of every browser). Also, they forward all requests through their server, which has the added advantage of caching the requests. The script I wrote is pretty slow because it has to bounce around a few serve

          • Re:Copying Dashboard (Score:3, Insightful)

            by peragrin ( 659227 )
            I think apple called it deskbar, or something simlar for Mac OS 7.5. Whatever the case I was using similar toys with fvwm back in 1996. Konfabulator was hardly an orginal idea. Maybe a new implenetation, utilizing new tech but not orginial.

          • Re:Copying Dashboard (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Yahweh Doesn't Exist ( 906833 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:54AM (#14255903)
            >IMHO a much better concept than just desktop widgets

            yes because who wants to just press a button and have all their widgets instantly fade in? we want to have to open a compatible web browser, load the page, look up all the widgets, download the data...

            can someone give me an example of a widget that is better in this way because being used to Apple's Dashboard widgets and using them many times every day it's hard for me to imagine why you would want them to be "...on the internet" except for their obviously patentable new nature.
          • Yeah and Konfabulator was a blatant ripoff of the widgets in NextStep.

    • Teaching basic programming (Score:5, Insightful)

      by l2718 ( 514756 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:34AM (#14255758)
      \begin{rant}

      Call me an old-fashioned nit-picker, but I still think that for people who will need to write serious programs, writing 20-line programs in C is the right way to learn basic programming skills. User-interface design etc can wait until people understand how to interate over a table, how to do arithmetic, and most importantly how to convert ideas about solutions to computer code. I've seen CS students who were started on OOP in Java (or C++). Of course the Profs found OOP cool and important, but this meant the students had to deal with software design issues (which is what OOP is all about) before they understood how to write a function that accomplished something. Once you've learned how to program (in C, Fortran, or LOGO for that matter), you can start thinking about user-interface issues, program design issues, efficiency of algorithms, etc. But the bottom-up approach to learning how to programming works better than the top-down style.

      \end{rant}

      • Re:Teaching basic programming (Score:5, Funny)

        by MullerMn ( 526350 ) * <andy@nospaM.andrewarbon.co.uk> on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:45AM (#14255839) Homepage
        How beautifully appropriate that your rant about old school programming is marked up in LaTeX rant tags.

      • Re:Teaching basic programming (Score:5, Insightful)

        by m50d ( 797211 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:49AM (#14255868) Homepage Journal
        C is a bad way to start - you need to learn how to do such grungy programming at some stage, but it can wait until you've done something nicer. Also, it's good to be able to introduce OO without switching languages. I recommend python for learning to program - simple syntax, enforced good indent style, language doesn't get in your way when you're doing simple things, but the advanced things including both OO and functional concepts are there for when you want or need to learn them. Only downside is many other languages are horrible by comparison - one advantage for learning C first is it makes you appreciate what you have with a modern language.
        • I think it's the other way around. OO is an advanced concept, one that shouldn't be introduced at once. I think that a struggling programer has his/her hands full just learning the language syntax. It's a much better idea to start using a language witha small, simple syntax like C or MATLAB.

          And yes, writing any non-trivial program is a chore in C because it is so low level. But it really is a simple language.
          • I think it's the other way around. OO is an advanced concept, one that shouldn't be introduced at once. I think that a struggling programer has his/her hands full just learning the language syntax. It's a much better idea to start using a language witha small, simple syntax like C or MATLAB.

            But with python you can learn the rest of the language and completely ignore the OO stuff until you've learnt the core language, and that's how I teach it. And yet, when you come to use it, the OO is in there at a very

          • Re:Teaching basic programming (Score:4, Insightful)

            by D-Cypell ( 446534 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @11:15AM (#14256070)
            Quite often, I am asked by non-programmers which language they should use to get started. My answer is always the same... 'get yourself some BASIC training' (man, I love that pun!). Most people reject my suggestion because they want to write games in their first four minutes or because other people respond with 'YEEECH BASIC?? You should learn to code with an exposed processor core and a soldering iron!'.

            The fact of the matter is, there is a language out there specifically designed for people new to programming to dip their toe in the water and learn some of the basic concepts like loops, conditions and variables without having to worry about memory models, pointers and header files.

            After spending a few months writing the standard "Hello World", "Im thinking of a number.." style programs, then you can branch out almost anywhere.

            • Re:Teaching basic programming (Score:4, Funny)

              by La Fortezza ( 690838 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @12:17PM (#14256624)
              It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students
              that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they
              are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

              --Edsger Dijkstra's Evaluations of Programming Languages (c. 1982)
            • The fact of the matter is, there is a language out there specifically designed for people new to programming to dip their toe in the water and learn some of the basic concepts like loops, conditions and variables without having to worry about memory models, pointers and header files.

              Python allows you to do all that. If you want a teaching-oriented language by all means go for pascal or something, but honestly, Python is better for teaching than anything I've seen designed for it.

              I've seen too many people g

            • I've always liked Pascal for a first intro teaching language. Its OO and the structure is closer to more common programming languages but its strict enough to keep people from learning sloppy habits. BASIC is just too loose with the rules. I like it over C because the syntax is more verbose, making it easier to understand for people new to programming. Another nice thing is that since it is not really used in the real world much anymore, at some point they have to learn another language. Being forced to
              • Thank you! I'm glad someone else remembers Pascal. It was my first real language training as well, as the community college I went to required it as the Introduction to Programming course.

                The fact that you pretty much *have* to move on to other languages afterwards is a great point. It makes it practically impossible to get the kind of people who think whatever language they learned first is the proper solution to every problem. (When all you have is a hammer, etc.)

            • The fact of the matter is, there is a language out there specifically designed for people new to programming to dip their toe in the water and learn some of the basic concepts like loops, conditions and variables without having to worry about memory models, pointers and header files.

              Yes. That language is called PASCAL.

              In all seriousness, BASIC is not the language that you want to instruct students with. More viable languages are ones that get a programmer accustomed to the syntax and flow of one of th

              • Yes. That language is called PASCAL.

                No! Pascal actually has operators that were chosen because they were different from other languages! Just to be different! Piss on that. BASIC is not so bad, because it is so different from anything sane (esp. if you use line numbers.)

                Logo is, IMO, a much better language to use when teaching programming concepts than either one, because it's so visual. You can SEE what you're doing. That's very useful. Granted, you can't do as much with it as you can even with BA

            • The language I recommend for people to learn is PHP. It's quite easy to learn. Since it's interpreted, it's quick and easy to hack around with. It gives you the power of a real programming language (unlike Basic). And it's immediately useful. It always surprises me how college CS programs largely ignore scripting languages. I would venture to say the majority of programmers in the world program using scripting languages. The internet is run on scripting languages for the most part. Also, from a tea
            • I'll bite.

              OMGWTF!? BASIC!? I would have agreed with you in 1975, but we've come a long way since then. Python, Ruby, or even Pascal are all better choices for a first language, IMO. Yes, they might all have a bit more of a learning curve than BASIC, for the purposes of writing 'Hello World' (and that's arguble), but it's worth the extra effort for the sudent.

        • Re:Teaching basic programming (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          I see the +2 Python modifier is in effect.

        • "Grungy programming"? "Low level"? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @11:47AM (#14256348) Homepage Journal
          Most people who think that C is low level, grungy programming language haven't written a lick of C code and couldn't write anything significant in C if their life depended on it.

          C has very simple syntax. The language doesn't get in your way, and once you want to start doing OO, you can pick up C++ fairly easily once you know C.

          One of the problems of learning a language like python first, is that it doens't teach you anything about proper dynamic memory allocation, the use of pointers, the use of operating system APIs, etc.

          Scripting languages like Python are nice, but you'll never learn anything about systems-level programming writing things in Python, so, for example, your hands will be tied when new hardware comes along until us C programmers come along and write a library for you to access its driver.
          • Most people who think that C is low level, grungy programming language haven't written a lick of C code and couldn't write anything significant in C if their life depended on it.

            I've written C and still do, far more often than I'd like. Heck, it's not like I haven't done any lower stuff, reading a memory address repeatedly with a delay loop to play a sound in 6502 assembler, that was low level. But compared to a modern language it is grungy and low level.

            C has very simple syntax. The language doesn't get

          • One of the problems of learning a language like python first, is that it doens't teach you anything about proper dynamic memory allocation, the use of pointers, the use of operating system APIs, etc.

            One person's problem is another's blessing. Who are these people that know about proper dynamic memory allocation? Surely you're not talking about the people writing the code responsible for all stack-smashing bugs out there. Not having to worry about dynamic memory allocation and pointers is a Good Thing

          • One of the problems of learning a language like python first, is that it doens't teach you anything about proper dynamic memory allocation, the use of pointers, the use of operating system APIs, etc.

            But that's precisely the reason why you might teach it first. I see that as almost like saying "The problem with teaching kids arithmetic first is it doesn't teach you anything about integrals." First you want to teach the concept of instructions, looping, conditions, and branching, and get those established b

      • Re:Teaching basic programming (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @11:41AM (#14256290) Homepage Journal
        There's only one important skill in programming, which is this: minimizing what you need to know in order to know everything you need to know in any given context.

        However, it occurs in many levels of organization, in infinite combinations, from crafting expressions (reorganizing conditionals using DeMorgan's law) to functional decomposition to object oriented design and beyond.

        User interface design is not a good thing to mix up with basic programming skills when teaching, simply because it is a complex subject in itself. Doing so defies the above principle on a meta-level: you're asking your students to master two subjects at once. However, I'm not against GUI programming provided problems are sufficiently simple, and scale in programming difficulty as the student acquires mastery. How many kids learned to program because they wanted to create games?

        Mathematics is still a good field to get beginning programming problems because you can assume that the students (at least at a U level) have basic algebra, and it provides a rich field of problems to solve. However variety is the spice of life, and it doesn't hurt to have a little fun too. Sometimes when I'm coaching an athlete, I will recommend a change in his program because he's not getting enough stimulation to achieve his best. In athletics, you have to trade of repetition of a program, which builds a base of skills, with a bit of novelty, which motivates him to try harder. Learning anything else is no different.

      • You're an old-fashioned nit-picker (Score:4, Interesting)

        by nobodyman ( 90587 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @02:09PM (#14257565) Homepage
        Call me an old-fashioned nit-picker

        Hey, you asked for it ;-)

        I disagree that C is the ideal learning language, but I agree that the primary importance of learning programming is learning how to think. I'm not even talking necessisarily about OOP concepts, but more generally how to define, approach, and break down problems.

        On the other hand, I think the worst thing you could do to a completely green student is to sit them down with a text editor and and compiler. This will only attract people who want to program in the first place and are willing to "tough it out". A good teacher/tool should be able to engage people who wouldn't consider themselves programmers. The first language I learned was LOGO for the TRS-80 and I was instantly hooked - me and my brother tried to one-up each other's spirographs

        LOGO [mit.edu] is my favorite example of a teaching language. The syntax vocabulary is small and your feedback is entirely visual (at least starting out). At first you're just moving a turtle around and drawing spirograph-like patterns... the programming methodology is almost a passive, secondary experience.

        That said, with computers and the net you have many exciting opportunities to teach programming. "Widgets" programming seems like it has promise (maybe not for 5-10 year olds, but probably jr. high and up), but even a campaign editor for Starcraft is basically a turing-complete "language" -- You still get to learn the concepts of a conditional statement, with the added bonus of blowing up aliens. Why not learn that way?

      • Once you've learned how to program (in C, Fortran, or LOGO for that matter), you can start thinking about user-interface issues, program design issues, efficiency of algorithms, etc.

        This is a big reason why so much software is clunky and nonintuitive. It's an engineering solution for programmers--not a user solution for humans.

    • When exactly did XML become a programming language? Its a data structuring language you idiot. As for the javascript side of the API, its naturally very heavily biased towards manipulating a web browser. I'm not sure exactly how loading documents into frames and the like is relevant or even a good enviroment to learning basic coding skills such as looping , variables , function calling etc.
  • Wow, didn't take them long to drum up a response to the yahoo konfabulator thing.
    hooray for more google toys.
    • They already sort of had that with the panels in the Google Desktop sidebar.
    • I don't think this has anything to do with Konfabulator. I think the point is to keep people away from live.com. A good thing, too, because I was just about to force myself to learn Microsoft's strange (and poorly documented) gadgets API.

      I switched to My Yahoo! when they opened their portal to RSS. Now, I'll probably switch to Google's portal.

      The trick to getting people like me to use your portal is to provide ways of getting my content into your page.

  • Ooh, ooh, me too! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BandwidthHog ( 257320 ) <inactive.slashdo ... icallyenough.com> on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:25AM (#14255689) Homepage Journal
    Odd to see Google doing the me-too thing. As soon as I saw the clock widget I knew the API was gonna be the now-standard HTML/XML/Javascript format used by Konfabulator/Yahoo, Apple and (I assume) Microsoft. So what does Google bring to the party? I guess these widgets live on web servers rather than users’ hard drives, but that of course ties them into the browser window. Perhaps we can expect them to put out an executable soon that will let them exist outside the browser (and thus be fully useful), but that puts them at merely the same point the others are at.

    Why the hell is everybody so hot and bothered about Widgets all of a sudden? I bought a Konfabulator license way back when, and pressing F12 brings up Apple’s Dashboard, yet I still check wunderground.com to see if the weather will be cooperating with my athletic endeavours a few hours into the future. Granted, I was one of those who thought the iPod was no big deal, but Widgets have been with us in their modern incarnation for a few years now, and world+dog still doesn’t seem to give a damn. Makes me think they really are just trying to keep up with the rest of the pack on this one.

    • Re:Ooh, ooh, me too! (Score:4, Informative)

      by stubear ( 130454 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:42AM (#14255814)
      "and (I assume) Microsoft."

      Not only do you assume correctly, Microsoft is going to allow their widgets to work both online (live.com [live.com] - gadgets, and start.com [start.com] - startlets, more (microsoftgadgets.com [microsoftgadgets.com] gadgets here) but on the user's desktop [microsoft.com] as well once Vista is released. Perhaps these gadgets will even share the same code and can live on both the desktop and live.com simultaneously.
      • Not only all that, but Microsoft did the online thing before anyone else.
      • This was one of the "way before its time" features Microsoft introduced in IE 4 in the form of the Active Desktop (remember it back from Win98??)

        It was a really cool concept ruined by poor performance, slow processors, slow connections, and poor security.

        I was sad to see how it got put on the backburner after IE5. Active Desktop could have been great...

    • Re:Ooh, ooh, me too! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by TheJorge ( 713680 )
      Sure, it's nothing new. But to early adopters, a lot of new and exciting stuff has really been around for a long time. The iPod's the perfect example. Many people didn't realize you could carry around more than a CD's worth of music on one of those little portable things everyone had. With some level of market penetration, the masses come to realize what's available.

      Google did the same thing with AJAX and Google maps. How long had the XML HTTPRequest been around? And now it's the bees' knees. Google'
      • How long had the XML HTTPRequest been around? And now it's the bees' knees.

        The question is how long has it been around for browsers other than IE.
        Not very long. I know I wasn't about to use something proprietary to micorosoft for any of my sites.

        Its picking up steam now that its completely cross platform.

    • Weather (Score:2)

      by jefu ( 53450 )
      If you are in the US, you might try the (occasionally threatened) weather site run by the National Weather Service. I've found it much nicer than the commercial sites - clean pages, little extraneous junk, set to do hourly refreshes. One of my mozilla/firefox tabs is almost always set to the local page.
    • "Why the hell is everybody so hot and bothered about Widgets all of a sudden? I bought a Konfabulator license way back when..."

      You need to remember, that 'back when' and 'bought' are in your logic. Now that Konfabulator is free, widgets have become a more viable way to spruce up your desktop. I checked out Konfabulator a while ago as well, but I didn't want to pony up any sum of money for it. Now that it's free, it's the cat's pajamas. I see the widget craze as a double-edged sword:

      Pro: You can put all sort

  • Google platform/portal? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by l2718 ( 514756 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:25AM (#14255690)
    With this Google is continuing to move in the all-the-info-you-need-in-one-place direction, also known as a web portal. They are doing it in their cool and effective ways, but that's where they seem to be going.

  • good idea but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by endrue ( 927487 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:26AM (#14255694)
    wait until you have better things than a clock and "ColorJunction". Everyone's personalized google homepage will look like a webdesign 101 student who just learned how to cut 'n paste javascript.

  • I now have a place... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <wgrotherNO@SPAMoptonline.net> on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:26AM (#14255695) Journal
    ...for that /. dupe eliminator module I've been working on.

  • This. Is. Evil. (Score:3, Funny)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:27AM (#14255698) Homepage Journal
    Google's use of the word "widget" is Evil. There are some words that shouldn't be redefined, especially by a megacorp.

    I've used widget for years - maybe 15. When making a generic description of a generic item, widget is the placeholder word to use.

    Now what do we do? Can they trademark a commonly used nothing-word? Will we see Google Ptooie and Google Grrr next?

    • Re:This. Is. Evil. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Nightspark ( 938372 )
      Google didn't use the word widget, I don't know why /. keeps posting references to Google Widgets, which don't exist. They're simply personalized homepage modules. Regardless, one use of the word widget has come to be small open applications running on a shared platform. So even if they did use the word widget, they wouldn't be redefining it.
    • Yahoo uses the word, not Google.

      Second, I see no indication that yahoo has tried to copywrite/trademark their use of the word.

    • Widget has been used in this context for a while now. Google isn't redefining the term at all.

      Stardock's DesktopX has been pushing the idea of desktop widgets for a few years now
      http://www.desktopx.net/ [desktopx.net]

      Additionally, there's Konfabulator, which was recently purchased by Yahoo and renamed the Yahoo Widget Engine
      http://www.konfabulator.com/ [konfabulator.com]

      Also, Apple introduced widgets into OS X with the Dashboard feature.

      So... the use of widget to describe a small mini-app has been around for a while now.

    • Re:This. Is. Evil. (Score:5, Informative)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:54AM (#14255904) Homepage
      Google's use of the word "widget" is Evil. There are some words that shouldn't be redefined, especially by a megacorp.

      I've used widget for years - maybe 15. When making a generic description of a generic item, widget is the placeholder word to use.

      Well, fortunately for the rest of us, you're not the final arbiter over the usage of the word widget.

      According to Webster:
      Main Entry: widget
      Pronunciation: 'wi-j&t
      Function: noun
      Etymology: alteration of gadget
      1 : GADGET
      2 : an unnamed article considered for purposes of hypothetical example


      Apple uses the term widgets to define the components in it's dashboard [apple.com] application.

      Hello, if you go to you personal page here on Slashdot, you'll find:
      This is your User Info page. There are thousands more, but this one is yours. You most likely are not so interested in yourself, and probably would be more interested in the Preferences links you see up top there, where you can customize Slashdot, change your password, or just click pretty widgets to kill time.


      Over time widget has come to be a placeholder for actual objects (in examples of economics for example), any gadget, and it has also come to mean "small, componentized pieces of code".

      Googles use of the word widget is consistent with currently accepted usage of the word. They haven't arbitrarily redefined it. They haven't even used it in a new context.

      Get over it. It's not your word exclusively.
    • Gee, and fifteen years ago (probably more, actually), MIT co-opted that word for X-windows widgets. You know, like, the Athena widgets set?

      Try doing a "man -k widget" on a modern OS, you may become very surprised. Especially if you have Tcl/Tk installed.

  • closer to google ecommerce hosting (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ajainy ( 798353 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:27AM (#14255701) Homepage
    1st step free froogle and free listing of products
    2nd step widgets
    3rd step pool of programmers who can program widgets
    4th step services with available pool..
    5th step show me money!!

  • The Platform. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by headkase ( 533448 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:31AM (#14255729)
    I think Google being nice by allowing really anyone to use their backend data and infrastructure, it seems like the modern day equivalent of the Stone Soup [colt45s.org] fable. What makes me think Google will succeed is that it's an open platform that anyone can target and being open allows participation that leads to those pesky positive-feedback economic effects whose acknowlegement was resisted even to the very recent past.

    • Re:The Platform. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What is open about Google ? Their main product is their search engine, and yet Amazon's (a retailer) search engine platform (Alexa) is more open than Google. Infact, Google's openness is like a little demo, while Alexa is the real deal, where anyone can create their own search engine.

      Google is an out and out content company which has roughly a dozen services, none of which can be reasonably used in any commercial application.

      Anyone can compete with Google...all you need is a geek, a computer, a web host and

      • Re:The Platform. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by headkase ( 533448 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:59AM (#14255931)
        The API gives you access to a enterprise class web-crawler for one. And we're saying the same thing, you say content I say data and infrastructure. The content needs delivery and Google giving you access to their server farms to build your own custom logic on top of their services/information.

  • Hotmail? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ZiakII ( 829432 )
    Now that widgets can be made for Google does that mean we will see a Hotmail Widget? Right now I use Google's desktop and its a PITA to check my hotmail account vs. having it displayed in Google's system, with this being now open source will this be possible?
    • You can view your hotmail on Microsoft's Windows Live [live.com] beta, displayed pretty similarly to the way that Gmail is displayed on your personalized Google homepage. Not quite the same as Google Desktop's version, but not bad, and much nicer than the bloated, ugly, and badly organized Hotmail.com [hotmail.com] web page.

  • Good, finally (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <`gro.daetsriek' `ta' `todhsals'> on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:32AM (#14255736)
    Maybe now I can add some of the mor euseful widgets at My Yahoo! to the Google homepage... lik a stock ticker that does more than just US exchange, or a TV listings mondule for more than just US listings.

    My Yahoo! has been way ahead of Google on this for some time, hopefully this will allow Google to catch up quicker by leveraging third-party developers.

  • my experience (Score:5, Interesting)

    by adpowers ( 153922 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:33AM (#14255748)
    I've been up all night writing a widget. Let me tell you this: the development environment is a pain in the arse. Using their developer widget, it gives you the option of not caching the various widgets. I tried using this tool to not cache mine (so I could reload easily and see changes to the code), but it didn't work reliably. Whenever you moved the widget around to a different spot, it would go to a new revision of the code... and it was almost never the latest revision. This was so frustrating. What I ended up doing was renaming my widget every revision (also a huge pain in the arse). I ended up renaming it over 40 times during the course of the night. Then you have to add the widget back to your personalized home and go through all the steps again. Blast. I'm not bitter :).

    If you want to see the culmination of my night's work, plug this into the widget manager: http://andrewhitchcock.org/musicmobs/w.xml [andrewhitchcock.org]

    My widget pulls data from musicmobs [musicmobs.com]. You can look at similar artists or find interesting playlists. If you visit that page, you can upload your iTunes library to make the recommendations more accurate, and it gives you the ability to upload your own playlists (which then become visible in the widget). Check it out!

    Andrew
  • ...because i'm not going to use it. i mean, when i type google.com, i want to do websearch and i don't need toys like rolling eyes for that.
    google's succes is based on it's simplicity, hope they don't ruin it...

  • Imageshack Hosting Widget (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Grimmthething ( 938782 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @10:53AM (#14255893)
    I created a quick imageshack hosting widget. To give it a try add this link to the "Create a Section" spot. It is a really simple one, but for me is very useful. Imageshack hosting widget http://base.google.com/base/a/16800097909005850654 [google.com]

  • Darn (Score:2)

    by cluening ( 6626 )
    Now I'm torn - do I keep using the headlines [wirelesscouch.net] page I wrote a few years ago, or do I start playing with Google's stuff? I know I will always have control of the first case, but the second case is so much cooler...

  • So easy (Score:4, Informative)

    by GweeDo ( 127172 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @11:16AM (#14256073) Homepage
    This was amazingly easy. I setup a Widget at: http://witendofi.com/widgets/witendoficard.xml [witendofi.com]

    It is a Google IG version of the WiFi Cards we let users have (see grebowiec.net [grebowiec.net] for an example, it is in the right sidebar).

    I had this thing working in under 10 minutes. I like. I will be expanding this. The timing was perfect, I actually started on a Konfabulator widget for this just last night!

  • Wic Wac Woe (Score:4, Funny)

    by panthro ( 552708 ) <mavrinacNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @11:32AM (#14256208) Homepage

    Try this:

    http://www.mavrinac.com/projects/wicwacwoe/google. xml

    Quite possibly the most useless Google Homepage module available.

  • At least one fundamental problem remains with google's personalized home/start/foo page: a very small limit (it appears to be 10) on the number of items shown in one feed. netvibes.com allows up to 30. A online newreader doesn't do me much good when I have to wake up multiple times during the night if I want to keep up with the feed.

  • Security? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by eurleif ( 613257 )
    These widgets apparently allow the developer to use any HTML or JavaScript they want. Couldn't they be used for cross-site scripting (XSS)?

  • Welcome back to 1997 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Devil ( 16134 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @12:47PM (#14256894) Homepage
    I never use Google/ig, because the precise reason I started using Google (in addition to their better search) was that I was sick of "portals", where every square inch of screen space had to be taken up with something. From the moment I first visited Google, I knew I was looking at something better, because the Google folks decided that they didn't need to tart their site up to look like all those awful circa-1997 portals. Go look at http://www.excite.com/ [excite.com], because that's where we're all headed...*again*. The only difference is that now it's customizable with JavaScript instead of lots of server-side stuff.

    No, thank you; I'll stick with regular old google.com or better yet, the Google search bar built into Firefox.

    The best interface is no interface.

  • Broken (Score:2, Interesting)

    by n8myton ( 937570 )
    I don't know about the rest of you, but it crashes consistently for me. I am using Firefox 1.5 and can think of no reason for it to crash. The formatting is really messed up, and the delete button for the "widgets" doesn't work. I am very dissappointed with this product.
  • So how hard would it be to write something that automatically converts Dashboard widgets to Google widgets, so you could use the same widgets on both? It's all just javascript, so this doesn't sound like it could possibly be that difficult.
    • Actually, only the simplest of Dashboard widgets are "just javascript." Most Dashboard widgets either make UNIX system calls (including calls to Apple-only command line tools like oascript) or utilize a Cocoa plugin to do the heavy lifting.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close