I love how it works all wrong.
It's like a recursive "This is Bad Idea".
Material UI
101–110 of 166 posts
Re: Material UI
#102This is the best implementation of Material in html/css i've seen. It's a little buggy, but nothing a few tickets won't fix. I'm constantly impressed with how fast you guys work.
Re: Material UI
#103While I like the project and effort put into this, I think, if you considering using this project, you should also look at google's own polymer project. Its based on the industry standard web-components. https://www.polymer-project.org/ React is using "virtual dom" which is kind of a hack to support web-components kind-of technology. Since the technology is currently here, i would recommend using it, and not using Re…
Can't vote this comment down (not enough karma?), but I would. React is great library, it is not very constructive to call it a hack just because webcomponents are there.
I'm not saying React is a hack. I'm saying that all libraries that try to provide true "web components" that hide their implementation details for the user, are only achievable trough a "shadow dom" implementation in the browser.
Thats just a fact, based on how browser work. With the shadow-dom, customer elements, and templating you can achieve true componenets, like in uix toolkits such as Android, iOS and Java Swing.
Re: Material UI
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this correct? React doesn't use the virtual DOM to create HTML-like elements, it uses JSX for that, and JSX is optional. As far as I know the virtual DOM is used to avoid updating the "real" DOM in the browser when you don't have to.
React does use a virtual DOM, namely so that it can efficiently track changes to the DOM. That's different than the shadow DOM that web components use, though, where they have their own sandboxed DOM that's completely isolated from the parent DOM.
Indeed. That's what i try to say. I think the knowledge regarding the shadow-dom and true standards-based web-components is not widely spread yet among devvers.
Re: Material UI
#105Great work. Thanks so much. I'll definitely consider using this.
Re: Material UI
#106Does React have something like web component's ? It's really unfortunately that the LeftNav component takes an array of objects to turn into links instead of allowing you to define arbitrary html as
Yes, React components have a special `this.props.children` property [0]. Which works similarly to web components's .
The current implementation of `LeftNav` doesn't allow for this, but it would be easy to add.
0: http://facebook.github.io/react/docs/multiple-components.htm...
Re: Material UI
#107I have to say I REALLY like what you did with the inputs. That action is really cool. I thought the spec said that buttons with just text and no background or borders were discouraged as they looked too unactionable?
Re: Material UI
#108http://material-ui.com/#/components/buttons Aaaand the first three buttons are hidden until you hover over them. How visual designers keep making mistakes like this in the age of mobile browsing is beyond me. EDIT: As has been pointed out to me below, they have their use-cases. I still wouldn't put them as the first shown option though - they're not exactly the sensible default fall-back. Also, the menu doesn't work…
You would understand them once they are correctly placed visually. Isolated they do look incorrect.
Re: Material UI
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this correct? React doesn't use the virtual DOM to create HTML-like elements, it uses JSX for that, and JSX is optional. As far as I know the virtual DOM is used to avoid updating the "real" DOM in the browser when you don't have to.
React does use a virtual DOM, namely so that it can efficiently track changes to the DOM. That's different than the shadow DOM that web components use, though, where they have their own sandboxed DOM that's completely isolated from the parent DOM.
Your first sentence is pretty much just a shorter version of what I said in my comment! The shadow DOM and React's virtual DOM are completely unconnected.
Re: Material UI
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current trend is rooted in the fact that computer displays approach the visual fidelity of paper prints by now (> 300dpi). Consequently a more print like design language is adopted, which often features a small selection of colours and simple geometric shapes. The large variety in print design demonstrates that this is not an unreasonable restriction. In my eyes the translucency of windows in Yosemite is a much n…
Unlike print, computer user interfaces are interactive. When you adopt a print-like design language you remove cues that indicate how to interact with the interface. For examples of how Apple's new UI is less usable than their old UI see: http://uxcritique.tumblr.com
I wish I could up-vote this a thousand times.
I often tap things that are just rectangles and fail to realize that other rectangles are buttons.
I can't wait for "everything is flat, two-tone, and rectangular" to be replaced by whatever the next trend is. Hopefully something more useful.
Ironic note: the flat trend was really made mainstream by Microsoft when it released Windows Phone 7.