Blogger vs GFC Gadgets

I noticed that GFC gadgets usually require a width parameter but Blogger setup only offers height (which is not needed) and none of the other GFC parameters appear. In fact GFC gadgets appear broken because changing the height has NO effect.

The following relates to a comment from the Blogger team, with respect to setup incompatibility with GFC

"Quick one: Blogger will offer whatever configuration preferences are declared in the gadget's xml file. If there are gadgets that need a parameter, but aren't offering it, we should fix them (or get them fixed)."

(see post)

Ouch.. Maybe this is where I need to explain that the world does not and should not revolve around Blogger's gadget installation model!! I can't believe you really expect people to update their non-Blogger specific xml gadget files to fix a problem which, maybe only to me, is obviously a Blogger installation issue (because they work perfectly fine when installed from GFC via their setup menu). This entire thread started when I found issues with Blogger's install of GFC gadgets back on July 6th (including the socialbar which could not possibly work from an Iframe) . I thought a simple "Add to Blogger" button in GFC would fix the install issues AND alleviate customer support loads from BOTH groups. More details here.

Update 8/11: My entire issue all along has been making sure that the millions of Blogger and GFC users don't fall into the same traps with the broken installs. My extreme frustration is caused by the days of efforts spent discussing issues/enhancements with the Blogger team, yet the issues still remain and the customers have NOT been informed of the issues.

The main concept behind GFC and Open Social is that these gadgets will work everywhere.. not everywhere with the exception of Blogger (.. unless you add the correct parameters to the xml file). GFC gadgets do not use or need width or other parameters specified within the gadget xml file, they use view-params and will correctly configure themselves based on the target container that they are placed in (using JS/DOM). I have had no problems setting the size and parameters of these gadgets, in sidebars, posts, templates etc because they just do the correct thing, both within Blogger or on my other sites!! The only problems I HAVE had are with Bloggers installation of these gadgets. If Blogger (and the gadget developers) used this "adapt to the container" technique, all of the test gadgets in the sidebar would be perfect (at least a minimum required width should be specified for a gadget).

Hmm? When I load Blogger's "Amazing Places to See .." (the top gadget to the right) width is not available (but should be). When the same exact gadget xml file is configured for my own page, width is available!! Blogger seems to strip width out of ALL the gadget xml files it processes..

Isn't that what started this whole fiasco in the first place?.. UGGH!! In most cases the gadget xml file isn't even exposed in the GFC code (container.renderSocialBar, .renderSignInGadget, renderWallGadget etc) and arguments are passed through JS parameters not xml files!!

Absolute Height (as required by Blogger) makes absolutely NO SENSE for a gadget that has variable sized content. GFC gadgets allow the user to configure the quantity of the content (N comments) as I would expect! None of these options are exposed in Blogger, even critical ones like scope. In a Blogger blog a comment gadget added to the side bar should obviously be site scoped AND the Gadget text and title should make THAT obvious. The current solution still causes data integrity issues (which I reported to the Blogger team on July 6).

Blogger is the one setting up the GFC container (if they do the install), so Blogger needs to define the container and parameters correctly in order to match the content (BTW: for GFC width:99% works fine.. but you might want to add a border on the div to make it easier for the user to understand the boundaries)!!

Google's Gadget Gobbledygook

Note: there are other development options that have much larger potential rewards, including Google Gadget Ventures, Iphone Apps etc. The limited scope of a Blogger gadget, the extra development effort, the lack of a proper support model with direct developer access (user-dev-user) and the untested nature of the release process are the key reasons I won't support them.

In addition, Google has more than just Blogger Gadgets, in fact the many types (see below) can be quite confusing with respect to how they inter-relate and where they can be installed to still function correctly (this WILL become a huge problem for Google)!! For Example, I'm sure Blogger gadgets can't be used without the correct wrapper (for feeds, skins etc)!!

Gadgets by Google (currently 191810 iGoogle gadgets)

iGoogle gadgets (requires iGoogle.. nice page with ratings/comments)
Google gadgets for Websites (generates standalone javascript code, which creates an Iframe)
Google Desktop gadgets (requires Google desktop)

Blogger native gadgets (Feed, Author, Archive.. requires Blogger)
Blogger gadgets (simple Iframe..)
New Blogger gadgets (require Blogger for skin, feed and wrapper)

GFC gadgets (requires two setup files and site setup)

Most of the above are defined in xml files..
Does anything make sure they are in the "correct environment" to function correctly? If not does a helpful message appear? (someone else can test it.. I'm done!!)

The confusion all ready begins..

the answer to "I need to embed Blogger's gadget like "Blogs Archive" or "About Author" (into a blog post)" was

-For every gadget, you can enter the URL in your IGoogle page
-When the gadget is inserted, click on About this gadget

hmmm nope.. wrong answer!!

BTW I also completely understand reasons for defined width and height. My BlurbBits can be configured to match the container size (without a width/height parameter) BUT this can cause issues, especially with photos. If someone installs a BlurbBit with a width of 800 and a height of 200 (like a gadget under a post) what photo size to I request from the API? .. imgmax 800 or 200? I have to request 800 because there may be some panoramic photos.. but a standard photo would just be a scaled down version of the 800 to 200 (causing performance issues.. and slow loading).