Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to think this way until reading this article by Nicolas Gallagher: http://nicolasgallagher.com/about-html-semantics-front-end-a... These days I'm quite convinced trying to author your markup such that you can redesign a site by applying a different stylesheet has the dependencies backwards. If you try to keep visual information out of your HTML, you end up authoring stylesheets designed to nimbly navigate your…
Strongly disagree, and the primary reason is that semantic HTML makes your source and stylesheets readable and easy to navigate and change for that reason. That is, setting aside technical arguments about re-usability for a moment, it's disastrous to have to look at a large codebase in this style: when you could look at this: The latter, aside from sparing your brain endless visual noise, makes it instantly clear how…
Semantic UI
201–210 of 257 posts
Re: Semantic UI
#202Semantic recently adopted my team's React adaptation as their official React port. It's lighter weight, eliminates jQuery, and all components are standard React components that can be extended or dropped in as-is. https://react.semantic-ui.com/
Why does it take several orders of magnitude too long to load? Makes me very concerned to implement it in any production application of my own.
Re: Semantic UI
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also use tag for icons. https://semantic-ui.com/elements/button.html
Is this so bad? It seems to me that using for icons has become pretty standard across many sites and you shouldn't be using the tag for italics anyways - there's for that now.
Re: Semantic UI
#204Semantic recently adopted my team's React adaptation as their official React port. It's lighter weight, eliminates jQuery, and all components are standard React components that can be extended or dropped in as-is. https://react.semantic-ui.com/
I might have to try this out, too bad I didn't see this yesterday. Settled out with trying http://ant.design/ which has actually been pretty nice as well. Seems most React components libs are material design and I can't stand the look.
Ant is good at making the css importable module by module using webpack. Semantic ui could adopt this approach too.
Have you had mobile problems with Ant? Seems a touch buggy there
Re: Semantic UI
#205Might also check out Ant Design. https://ant.design/ It's integrated with React and there's a separate mobile UI for it. Ant is Chinese, with docs translated into English. Like China, it's huge^^ I've just been fooling around with it today for the first time in create-react-app and seems good so far. Haven't tried on mobile.
Some mobile glitches with Ant, but I'm considering trying it. I only need a few components
Re: Semantic UI
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to think this way until reading this article by Nicolas Gallagher: http://nicolasgallagher.com/about-html-semantics-front-end-a... These days I'm quite convinced trying to author your markup such that you can redesign a site by applying a different stylesheet has the dependencies backwards. If you try to keep visual information out of your HTML, you end up authoring stylesheets designed to nimbly navigate your…
Strongly disagree, and the primary reason is that semantic HTML makes your source and stylesheets readable and easy to navigate and change for that reason. That is, setting aside technical arguments about re-usability for a moment, it's disastrous to have to look at a large codebase in this style: when you could look at this: The latter, aside from sparing your brain endless visual noise, makes it instantly clear how…
Re: Semantic UI
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also use tag for icons. https://semantic-ui.com/elements/button.html
Is this so bad? It seems to me that using for icons has become pretty standard across many sites and you shouldn't be using the tag for italics anyways - there's for that now.
Re: Semantic UI
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to think this way until reading this article by Nicolas Gallagher: http://nicolasgallagher.com/about-html-semantics-front-end-a... These days I'm quite convinced trying to author your markup such that you can redesign a site by applying a different stylesheet has the dependencies backwards. If you try to keep visual information out of your HTML, you end up authoring stylesheets designed to nimbly navigate your…
Strongly disagree, and the primary reason is that semantic HTML makes your source and stylesheets readable and easy to navigate and change for that reason. That is, setting aside technical arguments about re-usability for a moment, it's disastrous to have to look at a large codebase in this style: when you could look at this: The latter, aside from sparing your brain endless visual noise, makes it instantly clear how…
Re: Semantic UI
#209But, gods, buttons as divs. Maybe they're easier to style, but if I had a dollar for every time I couldn't use someone's site because they used a div as a button, then didn't do the several other things that gives you for free that make all the accessibility difference, well, I'd not worry about money ever again.
I'm glad to see that the homepage example at least uses , but then the rendering of the example isn't keyboard-focusable or actionable. Then, when I look at the actual code they're rendering, it's back to divs. So they're not even rendering their example code.
Can I use Semantic with the actual HTML elements that the divs are meant to style, so I can use the CSS class names some folks hate and derive their benefits to me, but still get the accessibility benefits of the tags? I'd read their docs and check, but I don't know if they're linked from the main page. I see links to 1.X/0.X docs, but I can't find a link to 2.X docs. There's a "Menu" link which may pop up more links, but I can't seem to trigger this with Enter. I seriously spent 10-15 minutes on this page looking for docs using only my keyboard, before deciding that I really had better ways to spend my day.
I hate to advise people to avoid projects because I'm not so arrogant as to think my language/stack/framework/whatever is anything other than my favorite, and I do want to like this one, but every time I look at it the accessibility story is disappointing, and given that it's a framework, that means other sites will likely inherit disappointing accessibility stories too.
And now it's back to drinking, which seems to be the only fix for this[1].
1. Not really, but damn am I tired of a) fighting the same battles again and again and b) answering the same questions about said battles again and again. All of this stuff is exhaustively documented by folks who are smarter than I am, so it isn't obscure, nor is it something I need to (or am even highly qualified to) answer.
Re: Semantic UI
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strongly disagree, and the primary reason is that semantic HTML makes your source and stylesheets readable and easy to navigate and change for that reason. That is, setting aside technical arguments about re-usability for a moment, it's disastrous to have to look at a large codebase in this style: when you could look at this: The latter, aside from sparing your brain endless visual noise, makes it instantly clear how…
You're ignoring GPPs argument though, 'basket', 'product' and 'searchResults' aren't reusable. From the POV of a dev on your team (who knows the framework), I know how to change 'pull-left', 'row', 'col-xs-4' to get the result I want without CSS spelunking.
The point is they are orthogonal issues. Creating re-usable chunks of CSS does not suddenly absolve you of the responsibility to make your HTML readable. You can do either one without the other, but you should be doing both.