3 ms·

> The use of Bootstrap and the spread of templates made Web Design boring. Boring maybe, but Bootstrap is extremely practical for non-designers like me. I fee

> The use of Bootstrap and the spread of templates made Web Design boring. Boring maybe, but Bootstrap is extremely practical for non-designers like me. I feel like Bootstrap captured more than 80% of the features I want for less than 20% of the time (or cost) it would take to make something from scratch. Second, navigation on websites became much more predictable. The examples they show of Web Design 3.0 look difficult to navigate. Aside from increasing dwell time from confused users, there probably isn't a big benefit. In the future, I see custom website design being accessible for large companies that need their site to evoke a certain brand image. For the rest of us, Bootstrap will continue to evolve (Web Design 2.5) to provide +80% of what we want.

dmalik 8y ago
> Second, navigation on websites became much more predictable. The examples they show of Web Design 3.0 look difficult to navigate. Aside from increasing dwell time from confused users, there probably isn't a big benefit. Jakobs law comes to mind on this point - https://lawsofux.com/jakobs-law https://lawsofux.com/jakobs-law
- radley 8y ago
  If you look closely, all three examples have standard navigation (top menu). The main difference is that elements can overlap in the presentation layer (i.e. body) while still benefiting from a grid system. People have seen this type of layout in print for decades, so Jacob's Law isn't broken.
mattferderer 8y ago
Bootstrap & templates didn't make web design boring. People using them without much modifications did. I think Bootstrap is trying to offer both an out of the box template like framework & utility framework in their latest & upcoming releases. Foundation also does this. Whereas something like Tailwind does a nice job of being just a utility framework. I think there is a lot of value in using any of the above depending on your skill level. They all solve common problems so you don't have to. A good HTML/CSS designer/developer should have no problem extending & customizing them either so that they don't look like every other site using them. No reason to rebuild everything from scratch. On an additional note, it depends what the website is trying to mirror as to how you want to layout the content. A news site is often best done similar to a newspaper with nice table like structure.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  Bootstrap's long delayed transition away from pixel sizing contributed to the problem.
- extra88 8y ago
  And those who don't modify Bootstrap also probably load the whole damn thing instead of just the parts they're actually using. They use a CDN-hosted copy and say "eh, performance isn't an issue because the files are probably in the user's cache anyway." Except the files aren't in the cache more often than not. Bootstrap has flaws but they keep improving it. A non-professional designer using Bootstrap is a better outcome most of the time compared to no CSS framework or using many of the others.

dmalik 8y ago

> Second, navigation on websites became much more predictable. The examples they show of Web Design 3.0 look difficult to navigate. Aside from increasing dwell time from confused users, there probably isn't a big benefit. Jakobs law comes to mind on this point - https://lawsofux.com/jakobs-law https://lawsofux.com/jakobs-law

radley 8y ago
If you look closely, all three examples have standard navigation (top menu). The main difference is that elements can overlap in the presentation layer (i.e. body) while still benefiting from a grid system. People have seen this type of layout in print for decades, so Jacob's Law isn't broken.

mattferderer 8y ago

Bootstrap & templates didn't make web design boring. People using them without much modifications did. I think Bootstrap is trying to offer both an out of the box template like framework & utility framework in their latest & upcoming releases. Foundation also does this. Whereas something like Tailwind does a nice job of being just a utility framework. I think there is a lot of value in using any of the above depending on your skill level. They all solve common problems so you don't have to. A good HTML/CSS designer/developer should have no problem extending & customizing them either so that they don't look like every other site using them. No reason to rebuild everything from scratch. On an additional note, it depends what the website is trying to mirror as to how you want to layout the content. A news site is often best done similar to a newspaper with nice table like structure.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
Bootstrap's long delayed transition away from pixel sizing contributed to the problem.
extra88 8y ago
And those who don't modify Bootstrap also probably load the whole damn thing instead of just the parts they're actually using. They use a CDN-hosted copy and say "eh, performance isn't an issue because the files are probably in the user's cache anyway." Except the files aren't in the cache more often than not. Bootstrap has flaws but they keep improving it. A non-professional designer using Bootstrap is a better outcome most of the time compared to no CSS framework or using many of the others.