41–50 of 174 posts
Interesting side effects of css utility frameworks: I was trying to scrape a website that uses tailwind this week and it’s really difficult, as nothing had a unique class name.
I am more impressed by the landing page than the actual components. Is anyone aware of a good component library for landing/marketing pages for Tailwind? There are toolkits like https://frontendor.com but they all follow the 5-10 year old "theme" of insanely packed content you had seen on SaaS pages some years ago. Together with many photographs or flat humans... I can't find anything with "new" approach which uses m…
I’m not saying this is ugly but the visual execution of some of these components is poor. No good usage of padding in some examples, poor ratios between the typography and the containers, inconsistent use of different line widths and border radius, weird and incosistent design choices in spacing and proportions… I mean. This looks alright and it will certainly make any UI look pretty decent, but the execution is not…
This sort of stuff was difficult to figure out when I was learning HTML/CSS, do you know of any guides which list similar rules and how to make "proper" use of properties like borders, padding, typography etc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. No. It's a link disguised as a button. Stop doing that.
Why? A “create” button that takes you to a creation page is still a link to that page and should be a link. It looking like a button indicates an action that the user understands. It is accessible, semantically correct, and follows accepted design conventions. What is the problem?
Because there's an expected built-in behaviour to these elements.
> It is accessible, semantically correct, and follows accepted design conventions.
There's nothing accepted about disguising a link as a button. Especially when it literally does no action except, you know, linking to a different page.
Though, of course, there are ambiguous situations, especially in the context of PWAs. But code examples are not an ambiguous situation.
I agree with some comments that it is lacking that wow factor that TailwindUI has.
I'm working on https://versoly.com/ which is a Tailwind Website builder and have ran into a bunch of issues with Tailwind when it comes to building static sites.
I love that Bootstrap offer "btn btn-primary" and it makes it very easy to keep a consistent site.
For Tailwind to take off it needs
- A list of components (maybe 20 ish, buttons, tabs, navbars being the main ones) - JS for components - Container system (I have built one that works similar to Bootstrap and makes it much easier to create responsive layouts quickly)
Once those core parts have been built I believe developers will create more advanced libraries such as lightboxes etc which will save even more time.
I'm a big fan of the new https://github.com/vuejs/petite-vue which is only 5kb and comes with a lot of power. Also combining it with something like https://github.com/CaptainCodeman/x-transition would be interesting.
I really want to see Tailwind grow so if you're interested in opensource or want to create paid UI kits feel free dm as I have a ton of ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see this not as a replacement, but as a novice choice. As noted in the documentation, you can use tailwind classes to customize existing components but if you do not want to you can use it like bootstrap. Even for building a quick prototype which can be made to look good in future is a use case for this.
I want to note that I was talking about tailwind vs bootstrap and others in the abstract, less so about DaisyUI specifically . What lead me to make the comment was the discussion point that "btn btn-primary" was so much more useful than 20+ tailwind classes. I agreed (it's something I have come across as well), but It's clear that Daisy UI will get you up and running quickly and there are lots of similar projects out…
I actually like it, as looking at the code I can see exactly what it does. 'btn-primary' doesn't convey anything to me. 'rounded text-sm font-bold py-2 px-3 bg-indigo-300' I know exactly what that is going to look like.
I also appreciate the removal of classes not needed if using a build step - much nicer to have a small css file that has exactly what you use, rather than a bootstrap style kitchen sink
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With Tailwind, if you write out something like that more than once or twice, you're really supposed to bundle it together. Either as a plain CSS class, or a component in your framework of choice. I suppose a library of common elements is a good thing to have, but the reason I like Tailwind is that I can use the utilities at first and then easily gather them together as plain CSS classes as and when that makes sense t…
But if you're going to hide away CSS inside a component, why not just use inline CSS? What does Tailwind add to this?
This is a very nice step in making Tailwind more Bootstrap like (read beginner friendly). One common complaint about Tailwind is that it makes the HTML look very full (full of classes). A very good example on OP's website for a button: Using tailwind: Button Using daisy: Button Although I personally think that the corners at a bit too rounded by default, giving it a very amateur look but I think you can customize tha…
No. No. It's a link disguised as a button. Stop doing that.
edit: I said “form”, but I meant page. Forms actually use buttons!
DaisyUI is a great starting point but it is missing a lot to make it functional and then you end up recreating the wheel. I agree with some comments that it is lacking that wow factor that TailwindUI has. I'm working on https://versoly.com/ which is a Tailwind Website builder and have ran into a bunch of issues with Tailwind when it comes to building static sites. I love that Bootstrap offer "btn btn-primary" and it…
You have a lot higher standards than I about what "taking off" means :-D
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? A “create” button that takes you to a creation page is still a link to that page and should be a link. It looking like a button indicates an action that the user understands. It is accessible, semantically correct, and follows accepted design conventions. What is the problem?
> Why? Because there's an expected built-in behaviour to these elements. > It is accessible, semantically correct, and follows accepted design conventions. There's nothing accepted about disguising a link as a button. Especially when it literally does no action except, you know, linking to a different page. Though, of course, there are ambiguous situations, especially in the context of PWAs. But code examples are not…