Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bootstrap 3 RC1

twitter.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 143 posts

Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1

#121

Post by taspeotis »

TylerE wrote: post #118
ricardobeat wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bears repeting: IE8 is at < 8% global share, < 5% in many markets, and effectively 0% for any tech-related business. Google has dropped support almost a year ago. Mobile and Safari are way bigger concerns.

Careful now. If your user base is "normal" people it might be substantially more than that. One site I run is a local news site (East Coast, USA) that does a fair amount of traffic (~10M pages, ~500k visitors monthly), and IE8 is still hovering around 13% for us, with IE7 at just over 2%. In fact, IE8 > IE9, by a fair margin. The good news is that IE share overall is down substantially. Jul 2010: 74% Jul 2011: 65% Ju…

The industry I'm in has very non-technical users and businesses. Last time I checked our telemetry it was reporting that 40% of our customers were on XP and 30% used IE8.

Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1

#122

Post by latchkey »

ryanSrich wrote: post #108
davidw wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it might not be much "hassle" in terms of adding some code, the part I appreciate most about bootstrap is that it's put together by competent designers and looks good as a whole. Once I start f'ing around with individual bits and pieces, my guess is that things are going to go to hell in a handbasket in short order, which sort of defeats the purpose of the whole thing in the first place. Also, my guess is that…

You should never rely on the styling for a public facing website. Sure, if you're building a side projects or perhaps even an MVP, go for it. However, if you're building a site to service a market, whether it be selling something, publishing something, etc. you should always go with a unique design. Bootstrap is great for having some underlying architecture but the visual styles should rarely be used. Keeping the ori…

I stopped at 'you should never'

Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1

#123

Post by ricardobeat »

TylerE wrote: post #118
ricardobeat wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bears repeting: IE8 is at < 8% global share, < 5% in many markets, and effectively 0% for any tech-related business. Google has dropped support almost a year ago. Mobile and Safari are way bigger concerns.

Careful now. If your user base is "normal" people it might be substantially more than that. One site I run is a local news site (East Coast, USA) that does a fair amount of traffic (~10M pages, ~500k visitors monthly), and IE8 is still hovering around 13% for us, with IE7 at just over 2%. In fact, IE8 > IE9, by a fair margin. The good news is that IE share overall is down substantially. Jul 2010: 74% Jul 2011: 65% Ju…

Of course, it depends on your location and user base. The US has a slightly higher percentage of IE users, and countries like Korea, Japan and China still have IE as the #1 browser. Check your stats before making any decisions.

note: IE8 is only beating IE9 right now because of automatic updates moving people to IE10 (finally!).

Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1

#124

Post by ricardobeat »

jmduke wrote: post #115
joevandyk wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, those aren't buttons. Those are text inside a rectangle. :( http://monosnap.com/image/Vc05ZRQmGTmRrYvTEbLaYAI6w.png -- those do not look interactive at all.

That's an opinion, not a fact. If I see a colored rectangle that's offset from the text with a label that indicates action[1], I immediately think its a button. I'm willing to wager a non-trivial amount of consumers do so as well, but this is what things like context and split testing are for. [1] The trickiness with flat design is when buttons for action are also used as information display. One of the biggest issue…

I see labels.

Of course context plays a huge part, but it's a gamble whether this trend will survive for long.

Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1

#125

Post by rozap »

exodust wrote: post #73
aleem wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are writing a web application of sorts that needs to have a basic theme (buttons, forms, menus, etc) then Bootstrap serves a good purpose and gives you a responsive layout along with it. It also brings some sense of uniformity across apps for more complex controls. For anything beyond that you are better off with yui/pure or csswizardry/inuit which offer much better responsive grid systems. Pure has one shortc…

You forgot the option of "no framework, I'll build it myself and have ultimate control". It's not rocket science, it's HTML and CSS, and you don't need a framework to have uniformity or responsiveness. Your site could be made up of a bunch of jquery plugins too, and stock library graphics, and is your content rehashed too? div class=span4 is nothing more than a table-based layout in disguise. Spans and rows are not i…

Just because people have a framework doesn't mean they will write elegant code. The example you gave is indeed ugly, but there are a bunch of different ways (within the framework) to accomplish the same thing without being so lame. This is a fault of the developer, not the folks who created bootstrap.

People write terrible code in bootstrap, django, backbone, etc. Even within the confines of a framework, man will always find a way to write shit code. It is one of the constants of our universe.

Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1

#126

Post by ereckers »

exodust wrote: post #73
aleem wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are writing a web application of sorts that needs to have a basic theme (buttons, forms, menus, etc) then Bootstrap serves a good purpose and gives you a responsive layout along with it. It also brings some sense of uniformity across apps for more complex controls. For anything beyond that you are better off with yui/pure or csswizardry/inuit which offer much better responsive grid systems. Pure has one shortc…

You forgot the option of "no framework, I'll build it myself and have ultimate control". It's not rocket science, it's HTML and CSS, and you don't need a framework to have uniformity or responsiveness. Your site could be made up of a bunch of jquery plugins too, and stock library graphics, and is your content rehashed too? div class=span4 is nothing more than a table-based layout in disguise. Spans and rows are not i…

This could and should have been written as:

logo

Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1

#127

Post by markdotto »

pseudobry wrote: post #79

http://getbootstrap.com/ looks like it got its design from Heroku's new website.

We've always used purple, save for the months of red in the v3 dev work that we then changed just a couple days ago. The purple was pulled directly from http://static.djbooth.net/pics-tracks/asaprocky-peso.jpg :).

Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1

#128

Post by kaeruct »

marizmelo wrote: post #102

Well just use xtyle instead: http://xtyle.xchema.com It's smaller and uses CSS property names as class names. You know CSS you know how to use it.

What's with the broken english on their website? Just a heads up.

Looking at the framework, it looks neat and more concise than bootstrap, I might use it for my next pet project.

Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1

#129

Post by canthonytucci »

Gormo wrote: post #111
davidw wrote: post #36

I 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?

It seems like preferring a uniformly flat style is a more "non-technical" point of view; a more technically-oriented perspective would recognize the quasi-3D beveling of controls as a semantic cue indicating that those elements are functional controls meant to be interacted with, rather than static content.

I think that buttons with some kind of bevel/emboss - ones that resemble the ones people have seen on computers for the past 20 or so years, and in the physical world for 100+ - are going to be more recognizable. Flat UI means a smaller visual vocabulary (usually, and maybe not the best chhoice of word but hopefully you know what I'm trying to get at), but it also means fewer clues for users. Once they've figured out the answer to "what is a button?" they're left with something free of visual noise that is mostly only useful while learning.

(Anecdotally) For someone non technical, change is usually bad when it comes to interfaces. I think that simple and "easy to understand" is a great direction and have tried using flat and "ios7 color&font weight differentiated buttons" in some recent projects. I have seen teething issues when moving towards UIs where the visual definition of a button does not include some "quasi-3d" aspect. Simply differentiating by text or background color makes a lot of users apprehensive about touching things, afraid they will produce an unexpected or unwanted result. I've seen them adapt rather quickly, but there has always been some 'what do I press?' stage. Not exactly test data, but the results have been pretty consistent.

EDIT: I should note that usually adding a stroke to just the bottom edge of a clickable button or a slight shadow/gradient usually helps. You can see this style in a lot of recent google products and I think it works really well (and I bet they tested it before deploying!). This method allows you to remove or tone down the shadows/gradients/textures from your navbars and other items without having them feel disconnected from your buttons.

Post reply on HN