3 ms·

I wouldn't compare OS interfaces with websites. They are totally different things. An OS UI is mostly buttons and other widgets, window frames, and behavior. T

I wouldn't compare OS interfaces with websites. They are totally different things. An OS UI is mostly buttons and other widgets, window frames, and behavior. The actual applications are very different. Just to give you an example: Look Reeder app, Chrome, Things, iPhoto all for OSX. They are wrapped with the a common UI, but they are much different from each other. Sure they use lots of the same OS widgets, window frame,etc.. but they have their own design and way behaviors inside. With frameworks like twitter you can't get that, unless you hack the source. But that defeats the whole point of it in the first place.

jonknee 15y ago
> I wouldn't compare OS interfaces with websites. They are totally different things. Not for long. > An OS UI is mostly buttons and other widgets, window frames, and behavior. The actual applications are very different. So is Bootstrap.
- lazerwalker 15y ago
  > > An OS UI is mostly buttons and other widgets, window frames, and behavior. The actual applications are very different. > So is Bootstrap. While that's true, it's a bit disingenuous given the difference between web development and native client development. Not using Bootstrap doesn't mean that you need to write your own functionality from scratch; for elements like buttons all Bootstrap gives you is some nice CSS styles and a little bit of syntactic sugar over using the web browser's built-in implementation. There's a bit more of an argument for the JS plugins (tooltips, modals, etc), but even then the alternative is grabbing one of the countless other JS plugins that do the exact same thing, not necessarily rolling your own.