News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:I'm Betting on HTML by berkes on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @08:17AM (#36969835)
This anecdote was a "pixel perfect" HTML version of some figma design. I did some CSS tricks to style the `<details>` and was lucky the designer was lazy and never specified the styles of all the dialogs around date/time pickers (they weren't that important anyway).

You can style a lot of these native elements. And where you cannot, I'd argue that's actually good. I've worked with designers who insisted that everything looked and feeled the way they had designed it. But I've also worked with designers who, when showed how the date-picker looked on IOS, OSX and even Gnome, were incredibly happy that finally there was design that just followed what the users were used to.

Point being: it will vary. But I'm certain we need all these JS UI-frameworks like MUI far less than we use them. I'm certain plain-old HTML, CSS and a little JS suffices far more often than it's currently used.

Re:I'm Betting on HTML by treis on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @08:57AM (#36970256)
>You can style a lot of these native elements. And where you cannot, I'd argue that's actually good. I've worked with designers who insisted that everything looked and feeled the way they had designed it. But I've also worked with designers who, when showed how the date-picker looked on IOS, OSX and even Gnome, were incredibly happy that finally there was design that just followed what the users were used to.

The native browser date picker is very limited. You can't do basic things like disable weekends or select a range making it unsuitable for a wide swath of usecases.

>Point being: it will vary. But I'm certain we need all these JS UI-frameworks like MUI far less than we use them. I'm certain plain-old HTML, CSS and a little JS suffices far more often than it's currently used.

These UI frameworks are just plain-old HTML, CSS, and a little JS. All conveniently built for you to easy build a site that looks pretty good and covers most UX needs.

>This anecdote was a "pixel perfect" HTML version of some figma design. I did some CSS tricks to style the `<details>` and was lucky the designer was lazy and never specified the styles of all the dialogs around date/time pickers (they weren't that important anyway).

If you had used MUI you wouldn't have had to do CSS tricks and if it's using a small fraction of MUI then treeshaking will result in a negligible amount of JS/CSS sent over the wire. So no real performance gain, harder for the next engineer, and no great path forward if the UI needs to be snazzier. It's just worse all around than picking one of the well known frameworks.

Re:I'm Betting on HTML by Freedom2 on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @01:50PM (#36974340)
> The native browser date picker is very limited. You can't do basic things like disable weekends or select a range making it unsuitable for a wide swath of usecases.

I think that you'd have to reevaluate your users and your use case then. As someone, like berkes, who builds sites almost entirely with HTML / CSS, it's often the case that the developer is RIGHT over what the user needs. After speaking to many clients about the limitations of native HTML elements, I've successfully convinced users to change negative browsing patterns.

Re:I'm Betting on HTML by treis on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @05:18PM (#36977647)
Why should I write my own HTML and CSS over using what Bootstrap gives me? I can't think of a single reason to believe that my HTML/CSS will look or perform better than Bootstrap's.

Especially since you can selectively import only the components you use. You're essentially betting that you can like for like implement what Bootstrap gives you better than what they can. Which just seems like a terrible bet regardless of how good that particular developer may be.