Transparent google gears scenario validation

Question

I want to use google gears, not for functionality but for optimization.

I.e. if gears is detected in the browser side, then we will silently use it to do some optimizations and caching in the client side. If it isn't installed we silently work against the server only.

Somewhere in the FAQ or help pages of our website we will tell the users that our site recommends gears for best performance - but it is not a must, we will not use "offline features".

Do you think this is a valid google-gears usage scenario? Do you recommend for it / against it?

Answer 1

Sounds like a valid usage scenario to me.. just realise that you won't be able to do it 100% transparently as the user will have to tell gears to allow your site to use it. With that in mind you should definitely make it an opt in thing (as described in the gears faq), rather than just attempting to use it if you find it installed, otherwise you'll annoy your users more than the slightly worse performance ever would have.

Answer 2

I think its a good possibility, but why try to hide it? As mentioned in other responses, the process can never be truly transparent, since some initial setup will be required at some point. Instead of hiding the feature, (depending on your project) you could use it to generate some positive press regarding your application.

Maybe by default you serve content from the main server, but along the bottom or top, include a highlighted link (think of "What's New" in Gmail). It could say something like "Improve performance by 50%" etc. The next page might contain a quick summary of whats going on, and why a user would commit to Gears. Similarly, when this launches, you could use the opportunity to show off "what you're spending development time doing."

I understand why you might want Gears to be unobtrusive, but don't make it hard for the user to get the best experience on your site.

Answer 3

Wordpress also promotes use of Gears in part to speed up actions - and Gmail in offline mode (or at least with active offline support) is also (IMHO) faster to use.

I say go for it - and if you can add offline support - and it makes sense - do that as well!