The One Interface to Bind Them All

The Browser. Thats the one interface that people think would bind them all - all the multiple data sources. Whether the information comes from the ever expanding web, or from deep within the enterprise data ravines, or from Excel files, or from E-mail stores. If you want to reach it to more people, just put a browser on the face of the data store, and you are on! Bingo!

A large part of that is true. The browser indeed has changed the boundaries of the information repositories forever. The browser has enabled information to be served to people in self-serve modes and has created the internet revolution.

But lets not get carried away. Browsers are great for many applications, and are woefully inadequate for some. Firstly, browsers have to be told where to go. Further, browsers open up in different windows and force me to switch my context. Browsers work only on desktops. Browsers do not enable me to mix data from more than one source. One browser page per site. Browsers do not allow me to add my own stuff and store it away for future use. Browsers do not enable me to create my own format - my own view of data.

Because of this, despite a decade of the browser being born, the desktop applications are still there, and will continue to live. Further, with the growing complexity, there will be- and are - more interfaces that I would need to do my job. Interfaces that would track things for me, interfaces that would enable me to work on my documents that I store on my machine, interfaes that would bring me data wherever I am, without forcing me to change my context.

I want information to be available wherever I am. I may want it when I am creating a report in Word, or creating my family contacts in Outlook, or as I track my recent investments in a stock. And I find that using a browser to look up information is not as productive as I like it to be. No wonder, I have multiple applications on my desktop as I work, and as I flit between applications and web pages, changing my context, and cutting-pasting across windows several times during even 5 minutes. Worse is, when I am away from the office and away from my desktop.

Surely, there is a better way than a browser. The browser does what it does admirably. But does it do all the things that I want it to do? Is it possible to create a browser that is a one-interface-that-binds-them-all?

A Swiss Army Knife has many tools. There are multiple things a woman needs to do. How can one tool do them all?

-Sangeeta

The Desktop Getting Crowded, but why only Vista Desktop?

The race towards offering the best connected desktop is hotting up. Already there were quite a few players that had created desktop-resident technologies with Yahoo and Google being the heavy weights from the web space, and of course, Microsoft with its Vista Gadget offering - after all, Microsoft does own the desktop. But there are more players getting added in every month, and that too, more of the enterprise types than the consumer types.

Hyperion is a case in point. With its recent announcement of Smart Space Gadgets , Hyperion delivers, I quote - "always-on business intelligence (BI) and BPM to knowledge workers throughout the enterprise" from its BI application. Smart space gadgets run only on Vista, so I guess it can get rolled out only after the next desktop upgrade cycle. I saw BEA making a similar annoucement some time back.

But desktop connectivity can also be made available on desktops without Vista upgrades. Yahoo Widgets, for example, runs on all Windows 2000+ machines, and so does Google Desktop.

Then why this preference to Vista gadgets? Specially since Vista hasnt exactly seen a upgrade wave as yet. Incidentally, clever strategy by Microsoft - using their hegemony at the desktop to enter some other area. In this case, it appears that Microsoft wants to enter the enterprise back-end. They have done this earlier - piggy backing on some existing products to enter other areas, and with devastating effect. This time around, other vendors seem to be helping Microsoft to succeed in this upgrade-to-Vista-to-get-personalised-gadgets strategy. Interesting.

-Sangeeta

WhatsIsName - Widget? Gadget? Desktop Gadget? Pagelet?

There are so many terms floating around to call these little floating windows that developers are creatings for the desktop users. Not surprising, considering the fact that the terms are just beginning to gain currency, and it would be a while before the larger populace decides what to call this thingummajigs.

Newsweek called it widgets - though what they wrote about were desktop gadgets from Microsoft and Apple. Whats the difference? Not very much in the eyes of the users, maybe, but plenty in the eyes of the developer.

My take on these terms, and the difference between them:

1. Widgets: Small snippets of code-enabled-HTML that can be embedded in HTML pages by end-users themselves. The widget contains content that is hosted on some server, either owned by the end user or by some content provider - but the widget itself is displayed on some other site than the original hosted site. Typically on the "social" sites, such as Myspace, or on blogs, like this one. Widgets run on browsers only. Some people also call them web gadgets. Sigh - more names, more confusion

2. Gadgets/Desktop Gadgets: These are desktop applications that float a small pretty looking window on the users desktop. These are proper desktop applications that need to be installed on the desktop, in some cases, and do not need a browser. There are gadgets which work stand-alone, and are reasonably popular.

And then are some gadgets that require engines to run them. Typically, they have a mother application that provide the run-time environment for these pretty little windows. The mother application, called by some as the Widget Engine , has a interface that sits on the user desktop - as a sidebar, or as a toolbar. This mother application, or widget engine, hosts the pretty little windows, called Gadget (or desktop gadget) which runs within it. Google Desktop is one such example, and the MicrosoftVista gadgets are another. In case of the Google desktop, users have the download the Google Desktop on their machines. In case of Microsoft Vista, Vista comes bundled with the Vista Sidebar, and with some out-of-the-box gadgets. In both cases, other developers (other than Google and Microsoft) can build gadgets for the Sidebar, and make it available to end-users. Though the point looks obvious, but it still needs to be stated - Gadgets built for Vista would not run on other Gadget Siderbars, such as say, Google Desktop and vice versa.

There are people who call these desklets also. Yikes, another term...

3. Pagelets: These are again small code-enabled-HTML snippets that run on HTML pages, and need a browser to run. Much like widgets, but with a key difference. All the widgets, er, pagelets, are hosted on one Pagelet Server. Much like the "portals" of previous years, these pagelet server providers provide a entry page, where several widgets are hosted, each displaying its own content. Much like the previous portal pages, users can personalise their home pagelet page to suit their preferences. Needless to say, these too are available only through a browser. Best examples of these are Netvibes and fittingly called Pageflakes.

The underlying idea for all three, namely Widgets, Desktop Gadgets and pagelets is the same. To extend the idea of proving data within users' context, and go beyond providing links. All of them are designed to create a user experience that is connected, easy to use, and within the users context, a crying need for information crunchers today. They are also similar in another respect - that of getting data from mutliple places from the web, or some other data stores, and placing it within a particular context.

What the difference is, is really the context. In case of Widgets, the context is a page, owned and managed by the user. In desktop gadgets, the desktop of the user is the context, and in pagelets, the pagelet provider's portal page is the context. Does context matter?

I think it matters a great deal. But more on that later

- Sangeeta

A Seamless Desktop: No More "Cntrl C" and 'Cntrl V"

The desktop of the future - or even the one available in the immediate future - will be one which would not need Cntrl-C and Cntrl-V keys. Information will be available, within ones context, within ones application, within ones document and spreadsheet, with a single click, allowing one to work with an uninterrupted thought flow.

And it will be happen sooner, than later. The time for the Future Desktop, the one they call by different names - Desktop 2.0, Business mash-ups etc - the desktop user interface that has no boundaries for an information seeker, is NOW.

There are already glimpses of it from the technology world. There are several I have looked at and liked, such as the Google Desktop. Some I have seen a sneak preview/screenshot of - such as Windows Vista Sidebar and gadgets. Some of these technolgies have been around for some time - though they did not have the "Desktop 2.0" tag with them, such as Answers.com desktop assistant, and even our own, Extensio Desktop Extender.

Clearly, the seamless desktop, a need long felt, is now upon us. It is early days yet to say how it would look and whether it would finally meet the "information on finger tip" promise, but it sure promises to be an exciting time.

- Sangeeta