3 ms·
It's still not clear to me why it's harder. Any give page is some series of components. Those have (I presume) a min width and likely a max width as well. With
by chiefalchemist 3y ago
It's still not clear to me why it's harder. Any give page is some series of components. Those have (I presume) a min width and likely a max width as well. With Tailwind and React being all the rage isn't such component-specific styling what's being invested in currently?
Those (by definition) dumb and interchangeable components then exist within a layout. And with flexbox and/or grid you can define "flow" of the components. (Note: I realize I'm over-simplifying but for the sake of discussion I want to be brief.)
Perhaps there should be (another) CSS framework to support this idea? Perhaps then it would be easier then? But conceptually, given the unprecedented powers of grid and flexbox this make better sense than the old static breakpoint model. Given the grid and flex box superpowers there's got to be a way to unlock a better way.
- chrismorgan 3y agoIt’s harder because there are more factors to consider, and a lot more subjectivity. Also because it fairly consistently leads to more involved layout calculations, meaning you do definitely need to check how things appear at diverse sizes, and the effects of changing parameters are often less obvious.
- chiefalchemist 3y agoIDK. With breakpoints there must not be a lot of checking going on then :) Much like "mobile first", I guess I'm suggesting "component first". On the other hand, breakpoints are more "layout first". Perhaps this explains why we still see (e.g.) 4 col rows on desktop remain 4 col rows on even smaller screen, to the point the context within each cell gets messy. I still see it as an education and experience issue* but with ultimately improved UX. * And yes, perhaps a library / framework/