3 ms·

I am a UX designer, usability, and visual designer, who makes the wireframes and mockups for developers. I also typically go in and write a lot of CSS and html

by UX-guy 15y ago

I am a UX designer, usability, and visual designer, who makes the wireframes and mockups for developers. I also typically go in and write a lot of CSS and html as a part of the designing. Presently, I am really in favor of developers using Bootstrap as a CSS and html baseline, and then having the custom design built on top of it. Even with a designer, I still don't see a tremendous advantage of rolling a entire CSS (or Less) stylesheet. The developers can start building and use Bootstrap to get things rolling, and the desginer can do the hi-fi gloss designs, and then you just change the Less to match the gloss. So you end up with a less/html template that is very solid, and a custom front end that is a clone of your glossy mockups. It seems like you get a lot more value and stability from Bootstrap + a designer, changing Bootstrap to match your custom design. I totally agree that in production, you shouldn't be able to recognize Bootstrap. But if you create your own "skin" on it, I think it gets you moving a whole lot faster, and with a broader coverage of css/less than you may have rolled on your own. Engineers should be producing elegant, innovative solutions through code, and Designers should be producing elegant, intuitive design and usability through interface and design. No one really needs to reinvent how to set up a blanket CSS and html template.

jenius 15y ago
Thanks for making this well thought-out comment, first of all, but I think you missed the major point and the entire reason behind this article. What you don't understand (and what I thought was clear in my post, but apparently wasn't judging by the flavor of most of the comments) is that bootstrap is not a baseline. You don't start with bootstrap and then build out custom code on top of it. You either use bootstrap or you don't use bootstrap. There's no skinning bootstrap - it is the skin. You don't start with it then change it to fit your design, you start with it, and then you are stuck and end with it. This point that you didn't get was the entire reason behind why I made this post, and was the reason for the paragraph at the end, where I said that I was working on a different type of framework that you can start with then pull apart in a modular way as your product moves forward without losing the ability to write your own code or having to hack away at a core codebase.
- ux_designer 15y ago
  I get the reason if your post. But saying you can't skin Bootstrap? There is nothing hard about changing all the .less files to be skinned to whatever you want. I am in the middle of doing it for a large project right now, and there won't be any visible evidence of Bootstrap. Someone who doesn't want to design a skin might not want to take the time, but that doesn't mean it's not easy for someone who is a adept graphic designer and CSS author. Especially with .less. Anyways, I think we're talking about different things. If you say I can't change Bootstrap to fit my design, that's just plain wrong. Every single line of every .less file can be modified, and it's probably tremendously faster and easier than starting with a reset.less and writing EVERYTHING from the ground up, let alone all the IE hacks and HTML5 workarounds. I honestly don't see the difficulty in adding/modifying .less files, or changing class names. All the div layouts and HTML can be whatever you want. You don't have to use their grid or responsive layouts. So saying you can't skin it is ridiculous. The entire .less source is included. Skin it as much as you want. Every single CSS and HTML aspect is customizable. And again, you are no worse off for doing so.

by UX-guy 15y ago

jenius 15y ago

Thanks for making this well thought-out comment, first of all, but I think you missed the major point and the entire reason behind this article. What you don't understand (and what I thought was clear in my post, but apparently wasn't judging by the flavor of most of the comments) is that bootstrap is not a baseline. You don't start with bootstrap and then build out custom code on top of it. You either use bootstrap or you don't use bootstrap. There's no skinning bootstrap - it is the skin. You don't start with it then change it to fit your design, you start with it, and then you are stuck and end with it. This point that you didn't get was the entire reason behind why I made this post, and was the reason for the paragraph at the end, where I said that I was working on a different type of framework that you can start with then pull apart in a modular way as your product moves forward without losing the ability to write your own code or having to hack away at a core codebase.

ux_designer 15y ago
I get the reason if your post. But saying you can't skin Bootstrap? There is nothing hard about changing all the .less files to be skinned to whatever you want. I am in the middle of doing it for a large project right now, and there won't be any visible evidence of Bootstrap. Someone who doesn't want to design a skin might not want to take the time, but that doesn't mean it's not easy for someone who is a adept graphic designer and CSS author. Especially with .less. Anyways, I think we're talking about different things. If you say I can't change Bootstrap to fit my design, that's just plain wrong. Every single line of every .less file can be modified, and it's probably tremendously faster and easier than starting with a reset.less and writing EVERYTHING from the ground up, let alone all the IE hacks and HTML5 workarounds. I honestly don't see the difficulty in adding/modifying .less files, or changing class names. All the div layouts and HTML can be whatever you want. You don't have to use their grid or responsive layouts. So saying you can't skin it is ridiculous. The entire .less source is included. Skin it as much as you want. Every single CSS and HTML aspect is customizable. And again, you are no worse off for doing so.