4 ms·

Not semantic. The FPS is good. The amount of painting on some of the objects is Too Damn High. What button is this? <div class="ui animated fade button"> Me

by Sarkie 12y ago

Not semantic. The FPS is good. The amount of painting on some of the objects is Too Damn High. What button is this? <div class="ui animated fade button"> Meh.

SwellJoe 12y ago
The word "semantic" isn't semantic. The problem with being semantic (where I guess "semantic" means, to you, that the CSS class is representative of the human readable content of the element?) in underlying UI code is that it doesn't make sense to have a CSS class for every unique item in the UI. The projects I'm working on a UI for would literally have thousands of classes. Even if I categorized them down to some subset (e.g. "apache-config-item"), it would still be in the hundreds, and would be unnecessary information; my UI doesn't need for Apache configuration textboxes to be differently styled than Postfix configuration textboxes. In fact, it would be counter-productive and ugly to give them different styles. The "semantic" in "Semantic UI" seems to be that the classes describe the resulting visual output. This is semantic. It's just not semantic for the end user (which it doesn't need to be). It is semantic for the developer. The developer, at a given moment, doesn't (generally) care whether the text box is for Apache of Postfix configuration options; they only care if it is the kind of text box they want the user to see. Presumably, you'll also have IDs that uniquely identify your divs and your input elements. Which still allows styling for specific use cases. In short, I can't imagine a "semantic" framework being useful if it is semantic for the end user rather than semantic for what the developer is interacting with.
hobarrera 12y ago
I agree completely. The resulting HTML is unreadable. All div tags, and you have to dive through the classes to see what it is.

4 ms·

Not semantic. The FPS is good. The amount of painting on some of the objects is Too Damn High. What button is this? <div class="ui animated fade button"> Me

by Sarkie 12y ago

Not semantic. The FPS is good. The amount of painting on some of the objects is Too Damn High. What button is this? <div class="ui animated fade button"> Meh.

SwellJoe 12y ago
The word "semantic" isn't semantic. The problem with being semantic (where I guess "semantic" means, to you, that the CSS class is representative of the human readable content of the element?) in underlying UI code is that it doesn't make sense to have a CSS class for every unique item in the UI. The projects I'm working on a UI for would literally have thousands of classes. Even if I categorized them down to some subset (e.g. "apache-config-item"), it would still be in the hundreds, and would be unnecessary information; my UI doesn't need for Apache configuration textboxes to be differently styled than Postfix configuration textboxes. In fact, it would be counter-productive and ugly to give them different styles. The "semantic" in "Semantic UI" seems to be that the classes describe the resulting visual output. This is semantic. It's just not semantic for the end user (which it doesn't need to be). It is semantic for the developer. The developer, at a given moment, doesn't (generally) care whether the text box is for Apache of Postfix configuration options; they only care if it is the kind of text box they want the user to see. Presumably, you'll also have IDs that uniquely identify your divs and your input elements. Which still allows styling for specific use cases. In short, I can't imagine a "semantic" framework being useful if it is semantic for the end user rather than semantic for what the developer is interacting with.
hobarrera 12y ago
I agree completely. The resulting HTML is unreadable. All div tags, and you have to dive through the classes to see what it is.