3 ms·

I basically agree with your corrections/details, so no need to drag the discussion out :) Except this: > you can do more with HTML+CSS in terms of layout than

by troupo 2y ago

I basically agree with your corrections/details, so no need to drag the discussion out :) Except this: > you can do more with HTML+CSS in terms of layout than any other UI native toolkit I cannot in my life understand how this worldview is so common. It's like no one has ever seen a native app before the primitive Electron and web apps that struggle to display a few lines of text. Turbo Vision from mid-1990s was arguably a more powerful GUI toolkit than HTML+CSS. Most of the things HTML+CSS for which pat themselves on the back were available in Qt in early 2000s. HTML+CSS have nothing on native UI toolkits: https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1424052288205856773 https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1424052288205856773

tracker1 2y ago
There are some niceties about some native UI frameworks... that said, they still tend to have shortcomings. Often don't work or have a really poor experience for cross platform dev or deployments. It also doesn't necessarily cover accessibility integration, which I've experienced the most pain in dealing with (at least going back into the 90's, far less experience recently).
- troupo 2y ago
  Yes, out-of-the box cross-platform is the main thing going for HTML+CSS. It's an undeniable fact. As long as you don't do anything fancy on the page, accessibility is now great for HTML, too. However, since it lacks everything that makes a UI useful [1], all the custom components everyone is busy re-making from scratch make the web a miserable place from accessibility point of view [2]. Much worse than native frameworks which often enjoy deep integration with the underlying OS's accessibility features. [1] See the work by https://open-ui.org https://open-ui.org and the many, many, many UI components most UI toolkits take for granted and have out of the box [2] And some of the work in the browsers made it worse: https://nolanlawson.com/2022/11/28/shadow-dom-and-accessibility-the-trouble-with-aria/ https://nolanlawson.com/2022/11/28/shadow-dom-and-accessibil...

by troupo 2y ago

tracker1 2y ago

There are some niceties about some native UI frameworks... that said, they still tend to have shortcomings. Often don't work or have a really poor experience for cross platform dev or deployments. It also doesn't necessarily cover accessibility integration, which I've experienced the most pain in dealing with (at least going back into the 90's, far less experience recently).

troupo 2y ago
Yes, out-of-the box cross-platform is the main thing going for HTML+CSS. It's an undeniable fact. As long as you don't do anything fancy on the page, accessibility is now great for HTML, too. However, since it lacks everything that makes a UI useful [1], all the custom components everyone is busy re-making from scratch make the web a miserable place from accessibility point of view [2]. Much worse than native frameworks which often enjoy deep integration with the underlying OS's accessibility features. [1] See the work by https://open-ui.org https://open-ui.org and the many, many, many UI components most UI toolkits take for granted and have out of the box [2] And some of the work in the browsers made it worse: https://nolanlawson.com/2022/11/28/shadow-dom-and-accessibility-the-trouble-with-aria/ https://nolanlawson.com/2022/11/28/shadow-dom-and-accessibil...