5 ms·

Why would one implement this instead of using Android's builtin widgets? Android apps have always felt better to me when they use the UI recommended in the Andr

by Gnewt 13y ago

Why would one implement this instead of using Android's builtin widgets? Android apps have always felt better to me when they use the UI recommended in the Android style guide.

avenger123 13y ago
This is for mobile HTML 5 development. If one was using the native implementation, there would be no need for this as you have pointed out. This could be a good use case for sites that have a "mobile version" but don't want to/need to mimic the full android look but get close. EDIT: I am definitely wrong on this (didn't read the docs careful enough). Thanks for the correction on this everyone.
- ctz 13y ago
  I don't think Android Bootstrap has anything to do with HTML5. It's a set of themes for native Android apps duplicating the style of Twitter Bootstrap.
  - dragos2 13y ago
    And it actually look very good. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5727009/screenshot-1384122081508.png https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5727009/screenshot-13841...)
    - mayanksinghal 13y ago
      I really can't differentiate between Disabled buttons and Rounded buttons. There would also be very little differentiation between the a basic button with no icon (because there isn't a good icon for everything) and the text input. Android design guidelines and 'language' is very different, and people expect the apps the buttosn to have some depth and clarity because of it. I, personally, would hate to have any of the apps that I use move to this style.
- lnanek2 13y ago
  No it isn't. Read the README. It is a library for native Android apps to use.
- alok-g 13y ago
  Responsive frameworks like Bootstrap are already designed to work across desktops and mobile devices including Android, so there would be less of a motivation to make it specifically for Android. This is a native app boilerplate that creates the look and feel of Bootstrap.
- taspeotis 13y ago
  > This is for mobile HTML 5 development. This isn't for mobile HTML5 development.
lnanek2 13y ago
Agreed. We already have icon placement in TextEdit controls via the drawableLeft, etc. attributes. And if your app doesn't have a theme font of some sort you are better off using the Roboto system one so you don't look strange for no reason. I guess the only real use is for the icon font, but people were doing that already and it's best practice to generate one with just the symbols you need.
lnanek2 13y ago
Agreed. We already have icon placement in TextEdit controls via the drawableLeft, etc. attributes. And if your app doesn't have a theme font of some sort you are better off using the Roboto system one so you don't look strange for no reason.
radley 13y ago
Resources, not widgets. Because the built-in resources are very Google-brand looking. Big apps have their own style. They'll follow UI norms, but don't need to look like Google made the app.
- estel 13y ago
  On the other hand, big apps with their own style probably have already chosen to not look like Bootstrap.

by Gnewt 13y ago

Why would one implement this instead of using Android's builtin widgets? Android apps have always felt better to me when they use the UI recommended in the Android style guide.

avenger123 13y ago

This is for mobile HTML 5 development. If one was using the native implementation, there would be no need for this as you have pointed out. This could be a good use case for sites that have a "mobile version" but don't want to/need to mimic the full android look but get close. EDIT: I am definitely wrong on this (didn't read the docs careful enough). Thanks for the correction on this everyone.

ctz 13y ago
I don't think Android Bootstrap has anything to do with HTML5. It's a set of themes for native Android apps duplicating the style of Twitter Bootstrap.
- dragos2 13y ago
  And it actually look very good. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5727009/screenshot-1384122081508.png https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5727009/screenshot-13841...)
  - mayanksinghal 13y ago
    I really can't differentiate between Disabled buttons and Rounded buttons. There would also be very little differentiation between the a basic button with no icon (because there isn't a good icon for everything) and the text input. Android design guidelines and 'language' is very different, and people expect the apps the buttosn to have some depth and clarity because of it. I, personally, would hate to have any of the apps that I use move to this style.
lnanek2 13y ago
No it isn't. Read the README. It is a library for native Android apps to use.
alok-g 13y ago
Responsive frameworks like Bootstrap are already designed to work across desktops and mobile devices including Android, so there would be less of a motivation to make it specifically for Android. This is a native app boilerplate that creates the look and feel of Bootstrap.
taspeotis 13y ago
> This is for mobile HTML 5 development. This isn't for mobile HTML5 development.

lnanek2 13y ago

Agreed. We already have icon placement in TextEdit controls via the drawableLeft, etc. attributes. And if your app doesn't have a theme font of some sort you are better off using the Roboto system one so you don't look strange for no reason. I guess the only real use is for the icon font, but people were doing that already and it's best practice to generate one with just the symbols you need.

lnanek2 13y ago

radley 13y ago

Resources, not widgets. Because the built-in resources are very Google-brand looking. Big apps have their own style. They'll follow UI norms, but don't need to look like Google made the app.

estel 13y ago
On the other hand, big apps with their own style probably have already chosen to not look like Bootstrap.