Oh look it's this (pointless) argument again.
Let's be honest: a great many of us are tired of hearing this same old worn out discussion again and again
So easy to criticise; so hard to contribute. Posts like this are dross.
Boring UI beats crummy UX any day of the week, and that's what 'strap is really about: improving the UI part of UX.
I agree with the general thought of this post, I think it's important to note that Bootstrap was originally made by @mdo, and @fat at Twitter to act "as a means to make better looking internal tools." Most sites that use the default bootstrap look are not as focused on their design as they are just getting their functionality live.
That being said:
- I love using bootstrap as a skeleton.
- I'm excited for things like Strapfork
Hey everyone, you are doing [design / code / prototyping / thinking / existing] wrong.
Surprised this wasn't on Medium.
Your blog isn't responsive, and you are criticizing people for using Bootstrap? Personally, I think Bootstrap, Foundation, etc, have helped usher in the standardization of design for all viewports. You can easily build a responsive site without them, but their proliferation has made it a given, rather than an exception. I think this is hugely important.
To me, this rings the same as all the backlash against Squarespace Logo. Yes, if you are a designer yourself or working on a large/expensive/high-profile public-facing project, you probably will not want to use Twitter Bootstrap. But there are plenty of other situations:
- you could be just starting out at web design/development
- you could be working on a small project part-time for which design is not a big priority
- you could be someone who doesn't have the time or money to invest in design
…that said, I would encourage Bootstrap users to use Strapfork or something similar to distinguish yourself at least a little bit.
Seconded, kind of. To me, Bootstrap is a developer tool, not a designer tool. And for small teams (and even big ones) it's an incredibly wonderful tool — not only does it get you up and running quickly, but it also takes care of a lot of the cruft that can take some time to properly architect (resets, grids, responsive breakpoints; all things that are relatively simple to architect but bootstrap does without any work).
And, especially with the newly released native SASS support, bootstrap is incredibly easy to customize. So, designers, customize away! Use Strapfork, or simply your own creativity; like all the web, the sky's the limit. Bootstrap, if anything, only enables this creativity by taking care of issues that normally impede the development process and letting designers focus on design.
Yup, we're mostly in agreement here. I'd just like to reiterate that most people in the world consider themselves neither designers nor developers, and some of them will be doing things on the web, and most of them won't know about HTML5 or responsive design or mobile-first. They'll just find a tool and get to work, and we shouldn't hold it against them if that tool happens to be something that a lot of others use as well :)
Is this the sequel to "World, Please stop using Comic Sans because it offends me personally"??
In my opinion, one of the examples he used, http://fiveaday.co/ is a beautiful site.
If you're arguing sites should stop using the same exact default gradients and buttons, I agree. However, if you're arguing traditional, proven design paradigms are bad to use because it looks like "600 sites out there" than I disagree. We are the .1% of internet users who actually browse 600 sites. For most people, seeing a site that is beautiful and works is a delightful experience.
About the post: taking a look to expo.getbootstrap.com I couldn't recognise bootstrap in most of the designs.
Yes. But not that many people know how to properly customize Bootstrap and most people that deploy it are just lazy.
The true heart and soul of Bootstrap is in its super-cross-browser supported codebase. Not the shallow UI. That should be the only reason to use it, and anyone else deploying Bootstrap with is default theme should be publicly whipped.
The UI that Bootstrap provides might be shallow, but we all still use buttons, navs, and forms. I would add that Bootstrap's soul is also the well documented markup for those standardised UI elements.
anyone else deploying Bootstrap with is default theme should be publicly whipped.
I agree haha
But not that many people know how to properly customize Bootstrap and most people that deploy it are just lazy.
I wouldn't make a generalized statement like that. The point of bootstrap is to literally bootstrap your app. It comes from lean and agile methodologies, where you're supposed to build the minimum version of something before going further.
Laziness is rarely a factor. Pretty visuals don't make businesses.
I like the idea of strapfork. Your link goes to strapfrok though haha. Also the button at the bottom (subscribe) I would recommend making the right 2 corners of the input box non-rounded as well as the left 2 corners of the actual submit button so that they seem more flush together and not disjointed.
I'm currently using Bootstrap to build an internal tool, I'm mostly a backend developer so using something like this saves me a lot of time messing with CSS and HTML. I personally like that it standardises some UI components, it's also easily tweakable using my own stylesheets.
I enjoy using it to quickly get UI's up and running and focus more time on developing actual features.
I'd go with the opposite direction, most people should use bootstrap and standardise.
You can happily build complex sites from bootstrap, knowing other people will happily contribute as theirs less to learn.
Why would you want to limit a whole profession like that? Bootstrap is something we can learn from yeah, but the web isn't for standardizing.
The article is about author is tired of the visual aspect of Bootstrap. Can't really compare to jQuery since it's something behind-the-scenes which isn't visible to the visitor/user.
this article is a year old...
And it still resonates :))))
So much default Bootstrap themes.... so much bad Bootstrap customizations....
If a site has the 'Bootstrap look' then that's lazy design; it doesn't make Bootstrap an inherently bad tool.
I've worked on front-end projects where people have opted to use Bootstrap and it is horrible. But, that's not what it was meant to do. It was designed to make internal tools more consistent and useable. If you're using it for a user-facing site then obviously you're doing it wrong.
It's like complaining that Dribbble is a terrible service for sharing music on. That's not what it was designed for.
Here's the thing, I agree 100%, but for different reasons. To be fair, I say the same thing about jQuery, Foundation, and many others. These are great tools, but people need to know what they do, and how they're being used. Instead, people just include them at face value and end up with a ton of unused code that the user has to download whether it's being used or not.
And this is not Mark or Jacob's fault. It wasn't intended to replace a front-end. The intent is in the name: Bootstrap, which is defined as: "In general parlance, bootstrapping usually refers to the starting of a self-sustaining process that is supposed to proceed without external input."
As long as I have no idea that I'm visiting a website that's using bootstrap (clearly standard bootstrap look), why should I care? Use whatever the hell you want, as long as you do good work. So use it, but make it your own. http://expo.getbootstrap.com/
Please stop bitching about using Twitter Bootstrap