[deleted]
Bootstrap 3 RC1
61–70 of 143 posts
Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1
#62I love bootstrap, but I'm completely unconvinced about the flat trend. My site, www.liberwriter.com is squarely aimed at non-technical people who are not really on top of the latest trends. I could very easily envision them having a higher cognitive load trying to figure out what is a button and what isn't and so on. What do testing and studies show about this?
>What do testing and studies show about this?
I don't know if it was designed by focus group or not, but a lot of work went into flat design. It helps to start with understanding the reasoning behind Microsoft's Metro design language [1][2], which is one of the originators of the flat trend.
In a nutshell, it's aimed primarily at touchscreen devices, but the principles that make it work there also happen to work on most other screens - remove all "chrome" (unnecessary shadows, 3D elements, etc) and focus on the content (strong typography, media, organized with whitespace).
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_%28design_language%29
[2]: http://www.microsoft.com/design/toolbox/tutorials/windows-ph...
Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1
#63Flattest thing I've seen today.
Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1
#64It has all sorts of bugs in Safari on my iPad. Switching screen orientation and zooming out cause the left sidebar to cover up the body text, I can sometimes get it to stay zoomed out way too far, and if I try to zoom in Safari crashes every time. Looks very slick though.
Same here, and it jumps around as I scroll down a long page such as http://getbootstrap.com/css/
Also buggy on Opera 12 in Linux.
Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1
#65For those wanting to try out Bootstrap 3 against an existing Bootstrap 2 site... note that if you use anything other than 12 columns that it won't work yet.
Simply: The grid is hard-coded to be 12 columns.
If you want more or less, then you need to adjust less/grid.css manually and reflect that in column count within less/variables.css and use grunt to rebuild.
Aside from the generation of custom grids being broken, no complaints about the rest and we've been following the bleeding edge for several months now and it's been fine. Yeah a couple of things have broken, but every change has been an improvement and that's a good thing.
Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1
#66I think Flat design is good from one perspective - easier to win client acceptance. The original Bootstrap is so familiar to everyone.
Even non designers have a Deja Vu feeling - "Oh, this is a very cookie cutter look. Can we get something more distinctive?". Of course there are excellent sites [1] which help in tweaking the base design but takes a lot of work.
Flat designs can be much more easily customized and developers can spend more time focussing on the functionality than the design.
Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1
#67So what exactly is the point of bootstrap? It includes an entirely pointless (and poorly made) grid system; an excessive (and unnecessary) css reset; complex & slow selectors, and lots of default styling you're probably going to replace anyhow. If it were a bunch of separate modules you could individually include and use as a template for your own style, you could actually use the parts you need: as it is, I really d…
> It includes an entirely pointless (and poorly made) grid system
Well if you don't want to design using a grid then I don't think it really makes sense to use bootstrap as it's main point is the grid system. Poorly made? They seem to have made a lot of improvement and is now pretty close to the Fundation one.
> an excessive (and unnecessary) css reset
imo it misses box-sizing: border-box, the default css values are really bad and a reset of any kind is always welcome.
> lots of default styling you're probably going to replace anyhow
But this is more and more the point of bootstrap, the default styling allows you to focus on the code when you're not a designer.
For me, it helps me build a quick prototype of my projects and avoid designing administration that I will be the only one to see.
Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
there is such a thing as plain border-radius: 5px, you know? I think mixin's are generally overused; having to maintain css as well as right it, I'm quite happy with a syntax that doesn't encourage their use. If you need em: fine, but the you won't care about @include vs. "." anyhow.
As I'm sure you well know, a mixing includes vendor specific prefixes. And the whole point of mixins is to make it easier to maintain. Once they're written, you don't need to worry.
The percentage of browsers that still require these prefixes are miniscule. I've been using border-radius, box-shadow, box-sizing, and others without prefixes for a while now without issue. Check caniuse.com for their status and you'll find vendor prefixes are dropping like flies.
Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1
#69I love bootstrap, but I'm completely unconvinced about the flat trend. My site, www.liberwriter.com is squarely aimed at non-technical people who are not really on top of the latest trends. I could very easily envision them having a higher cognitive load trying to figure out what is a button and what isn't and so on. What do testing and studies show about this?
[deleted]
Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1
#70I love bootstrap, but I'm completely unconvinced about the flat trend. My site, www.liberwriter.com is squarely aimed at non-technical people who are not really on top of the latest trends. I could very easily envision them having a higher cognitive load trying to figure out what is a button and what isn't and so on. What do testing and studies show about this?
[deleted]