Skip to main content

iGoogle versus Netvibes (versus Yahoo! versus MSN versus A Billion Others...)

The gloves are on, the bookies are taking bets, and everyone is gathering around for... wait, wait... does anyone care? I don't. Here's why.

Seriously who uses these things? Do you have such a light inflow of email and feeds that you can afford the time to keep these Yahoo-loving pages up to see and barely do a damn thing? If you aren't keeping this page as your top window, there is little point. The whole thing is about passive information. Oh, look at that quote. Hmm, its 7 AM.

If we're going to build web services that collect a lot of tools around a single page, then personalized home pages are entirely the wrong direction to take. We're an always on kind of computer using society, so how often do you see a homepage? Hell, I don't even set my homepage anymore, because I only see it once every month or so.

However, I do have my feed reader open and look at it at least once per hour that I'm actually at my computer. I can't think of anything that couldn't or shouldn't be pushed right through there. My GMail inbox, event notifications, quote of the days, and everything else would be far better pushed through one hole: my reader. The fun little widgets are interesting distractions, but they don't have a place in a reader, and there really is no love loss there. They serve no purpose and even as entertainment are barely on anyone's radar.

Again, however, there are some cases where the things we're doing in widgets could easily be adapted to a feed environment. Take, for example, the common widget/gadget in all widget/gadget families, which might be a simple 15 Pieces game. It would make no sense to have such a widget (and many widgets are equally insensible), which takes up space to be so sparsely used. Sparse used doesn't diminish the actual use, so how can it fit? Let it come up in my feed reader every now and then. I can play a bit and then continue reading, knowing that it will come around again to continue later. Information is nice when its in tiny chunks.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this. CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer.  One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC? It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on

The Range of Content on Planet Python

I've gotten a number of requests lately to contribute only Python related material to the Planet Python feeds and to be honest these requests have both surprised and insulted me, but they've continued. I am pretty sure they've come from a very small number of people, but they have become consistent. This is probably because of my current habit of writing about NaNoWriMo every day and those who aren't interested not looking forward to having the rest of the month reading about my novel. Planet Python will be getting a feed of only relevant posts in the future, but I'm going to be honest: I am kind of upset about it. I don't care if anyone thinks it is unreasonable of me to be upset about it, because the truth is Planet Python means something to me. It was probably the first thing I did that I considered "being part of the community" when I submitted my meager RSS feed to be added some seven years ago. My blog and my name on the list of authors at Plan

Javascript Module Loaders Considered Harmful

Introduction I’m coming to an opinion of Javascript module loaders that is profoundly negative and I’d like to express why I think they are, generally, a bad idea. However, I do think they have a place, which I’ll get to at the end. Now, I understand I might be in the minority here. Between the competing specifications of CommonJS and AMD modules, loader systems like RequireJS or the (honestly really awesome) Google Module Server, and the huge cultural influence of Node on the Javascript world, you’d be hard pressed to argue against Javascript modules these days. Scripts are old hat, too stupid, too inflexible. Everyone knows that and no one would make an argument in their favor, right? I’m going to step out on a limb and say “Javascript Module Loaders Considered Harmful” and I know the baggage involved with declaring something “Considered Harmful”. I mean every ounce of context that phrase carries with it, and I hope I can persuade you. Harm #1: Confused Debuggers