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

131–140 of 143 posts

Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1

#131

Post by djrobstep »

scotth wrote: post #112
ryanSrich wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Entirely unconvincing argument. Uniqueness of design isn't necessarily as important as you make it out to be. Most customers would not even notice.

Indeed. In fact, being directly instructed by the client to copy their competitor's website happens more than some people might think.

Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1

#132

Post by emn13 »

Throwadev wrote: post #94
sorich87 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Version 3 is very modular. You can compile the LESS files yourself and include only what you need.

You could already do that with 2.x too. I did this with a site that I built using bootstrap 2.3. No one knows that site is bootstrap until I tell them we used it. We made our own bootstrap.less file that only pulled in the .less for the modules we needed, so we could minimize the bloat. Also, bootstrap uses normalize now, not reset. This poster should make a little more effort to understand before criticizing. It's o…

I use bootstrap. I'm complaining based on experience, not randomly reading their code.

As to modularity: I'm happy they're addressing part of the problem, but it's really only part of the problem. Fundamentally, these "modules" are NOT modules: they don't provide and encapsulation layer since you still need to interact with them heavily. (unless you don't want to do any styling at all, ever.)

If you will, bootstrap is a set of templates, and it would work a lot better if they packaged it as such. It's not a library, nor a module: the insides of the abstractions leak out all over the place.

Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1

#133

Post by emn13 »

Throwadev wrote: post #94
sorich87 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Version 3 is very modular. You can compile the LESS files yourself and include only what you need.

You could already do that with 2.x too. I did this with a site that I built using bootstrap 2.3. No one knows that site is bootstrap until I tell them we used it. We made our own bootstrap.less file that only pulled in the .less for the modules we needed, so we could minimize the bloat. Also, bootstrap uses normalize now, not reset. This poster should make a little more effort to understand before criticizing. It's o…

I use bootstrap. I'm disappointed with 2; although perhaps 3 is better.

I guess if you don't know css I can imagine it's a godsend: bunt frankly, basic css isn't that hard, and most of boostrap is easy to duplicate with basic css (except perhaps the media queries).

Anyhow, I don't think bootstrap doesn't have good stuff; I think the way it's presented as some kind of "system" is a bad idea. It's doesn't work well as a system. It works well as a basis when someone takes the time to pick and choose what they need.

You can't just take bootstrap AND some other css, use them both together, and expect both to work orthogonally without a lot of care. They will stomp on each others selectors and you'll have a specificity war on your hands. How can you make this work? By actually picking, the bits you need, and doing more than a modular concatenation with whatever other css you need.

Basically: it's a great css example, not an encapsulated, finished module.

When you say: "No one knows that site is bootstrap until I tell them we used it" that tells me you customized it, and that's exactly how it should be. It's not a reusable component, it's a customizable template.

Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1

#134

Post by alternize »

ricardobeat wrote: post #90
nileshtrivedi wrote: post #76

List of all cross-browser gotchas from the Bootstrap site: - Striped tables are styled via the :nth-child CSS selector, which is not available in IE8. - IE and Safari don't actually support the attribute on a - Avoid using elements here as they cannot be fully styled in WebKit browsers. - If you add the disabled attribute to a , Internet Explorer 9 and below will render text gray with a nasty text-shadow that we cann…

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.

that was my initial thought earlier this month as well and went on preparing to get rid of IE7 support for our specialised cms' backend. until i found out that some of our best-paying corporate customers are still using IE7.

our lesson learned: it's not the quantity that is important here, but rather who is still (stuck) using older browsers - "don't bite the hand that feeds you".

Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1

#136

Post by hackula1 »

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…

Option 4: Your design skills are too good-- way ahead of their time-- and will not be understood until years after your death.

Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1

#137

Post by skinnymuch »

joevandyk wrote: post #95
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #3

Cue a dozen comments about flat buttons. This looks like a nice set of changes for Bootstrap. I'm not sure how I feel about the grid class name changes, but then again, I went all-in on Foundation a few months back, so it doesn't affect me one way or another. I'm sure mdo and fat have excellent reasons for using Less instead of Sass, but I'm a Rails user and I like Sass better to boot. Anyway, no matter, I'm glad to…

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

Sort of reminds me of people saying colored text without underlines aren't links

Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1

#138

Post by walden42 »

taspeotis wrote: post #121
TylerE wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which front-end would you suggest for non-technical users (for compatibility)? Still bootstrap 2?

Re: Bootstrap 3 RC1

#139

Post by taspeotis »

walden42 wrote: post #138
taspeotis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which front-end would you suggest for non-technical users (for compatibility)? Still bootstrap 2?

Well in my case the lowest I need to go is IE8, which both Bootstrap 2 and 3 support. If you need to go lower, BS2 has support for IE7.

Foundation 4 has some caveats when it's being used with IE8 (http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/support.html).

Personally: I'm quite unfamiliar with Foundation so I'd go with Bootstrap 2 or 3. If I had to do it for work I'd go with BS2 because it's stable. Otherwise BS3.

Post reply on HN