How the blazes is bootstrap "easier"?

It was an utter fail as far as I'm concerned. One example: In his "close to be final" prototype, he started the document contents with <h1>, but the tag immediately following it was <h4>, then some subtitles after that were <h3>. There was no logical order at all. He used those tags as a way to style title fonts as far as I could tell. The entire page was littered with Bootstrap classes. It was a mess to me.

He was telling my boss about things like keyword density, populating keyword meta tag with a few keywords and write text contents so that he would get the optimal keyword vs. total word count ratio, adding a bunch of open graph meta tags for Twitter and Facebook, and things like that. I didn't get to see him implement any of these things, though, because he started from how the site looked, not the site contents, and my boss fired him before he had a chance to get to that. He just whipped up a couple of templates (top and sub-page) with some random stock images and lorem ipsum texts all over the page. He probably spent no more than 15 minutes of his time at the most as it was pretty darn close to one of the default Pingendo templates.

I knew he was way off on some key fundamentals, but I didn't know he was *this* bad. So much for calling me fu**in' noob. Never knew I would end up witnessing a highway robbery right at work!

 

I have been reading a lot about web accessibility lately when I stumbled upon a certain video. It was an hour long video of a real blind screen reader user. She demonstrated how she browses the web on a daily basis using JAWS. I tell you guys it's not a joke! I feel like it solidified my understanding of what web accessibility is really about and what it's for!!!!!!!!!!!!!............

 

Since we had a bump by a pointless poster magnet of this year and a half old thread, figured I'd see if I can get this to let me post my Medium article on this very topic.

https://medium.com/swlh/html-css-fr...ance-incompetence-and-ineptitude-4c1db2571de9

I'm starting to understand where/why people get deluded into frameworks, and it's a curious phenomenon. They seem to -- as was suggested in this thread (hell of a re-read) -- like the fact that it has a uniform predetermined set of rules for markup and style... which is screwed up as hell since HTML and CSS has those, and these frameworks DON'T USE THEM.

At the heart of it that's what I really don't get. Why are people so dismissive of the rules of HTML/CSS, but will dive head-first into the rules of almost anything else? Even when those alternatives could get your arse dragged into court?

 

How long does it take to finish this job, may I ask?

I'm not going to debate on this thread. Just for reference.

Thank you,

 

I just got "temporarily assigned" to another group where someone was elaborately creating pages in bootstrap. It was taking him two weeks per page to get buggy not-quite-working stuff going.

I got assigned a similar page, and I had it looking like the wireframes in under a day. There are perhaps a few things that he did and bootstrap did that I haven't yet handled, such as aria markup. But because I've actually identified elements and wrapped them in very specific classes, it will be very easy to search and replace that in.

I showed my boss the considerably less complex semantic layout I was doing, and he's going to find someone to replace him and I have been tasked with redoing everything he's done properly with semantic markup and an actual comprehensible stylesheet. I was using maybe 10 tags for the entire layout vs the several hundred bootstrap tags applied several at the time to every element and completely unnecessary wrapper elements bootstrap requires.

And yes, my scripts won't be automatic based on style names like bootstrap. They will have to be coded, but is that so hard?

 

Aria is largely unimportant / redundant. For example WAI Arial Roles largely exist for saying what tag should have been used when you used the wrong tag. Maybe rather than throw more code at it, you just use the correct tag. In fact many of the roles say in their documentation that if you use the correct tag, don't use the role. This is why <form role="form"> is idiotic halfwitted trash that even the spec says not to do. Though the inept morons that use trash like bootcrap or failwind go right ahead and do it anyways.

Other aspects of it -- like aria-label -- exist for when you have the wrong content in your tag. Again, rather than throw more code at it, maybe you could just put the correct content in your tags. And much like with the title attribute, if the content of your tag is the same as the content of your title, oi, leave it out gimboid!. Aria-label is also often used when the code lacks a proper label. MAYBE rather than using some goof-assed attribute you could just... I dunno... provide freaking labels when appropriate?!?

I actually have a client right now who's existing site has idiocy like this:

<div class="store-locator__search">
                <span class="link color-slate-grey">Address</span>
                <form class="form store-locator__search__form">
                  <div class="form__group">
                    <input type="text" class="form__input" id="store-locator-search" name="store-locator-search" aria-label="Enter Address" required/>
                    <a href="#"><i class="ra-icon ra-icon-location ra-icon-location-dims store-locator__search__icon"><span class="sr-only">Current Location</span></i></a>
                  </div>

                  <div class="store-locator__search__btn clearfix">
                    <button class="cmp-button btn-rounded btn-bordered color-cerulean" type="submit" role="button">
                      <span class="cmp-button__text find_stores">Find Stores</span>
                    </button>
                  </div>
                </form>
              </div>

Code (markup):

If I have to explain what's wrong with that shit-show of asshattery, just back away from the keyboard now. It's even more of a train wreck since the form has no action and therefor no scripting off graceful degradation. Not good when the courts just bent them over the table. All doing the job of:

<form id="storeLocator" action="searchForStore" method="get">
	<fieldset>
		<label>
			Address
			<input type="text" name="address" required>
		</label>
		<button>Find Stores</button>
	</fieldset>
</form>

Code (markup):

Again, rather than piss all over the markup with presentational classes, classes for nothing, div for nothing, and aria garbage for NOTHING, one can simply just use the proper semantics and HTML structures, with letting forms actually behave like... oh I dunno... FORMS!

Entirely typical of what happens when you show a fraction the code, in a fraction the time, that you can explain even to non-coders and they go "hey, I can start to understand that". Something these numbnut frameworks simply do not provide. For all the wild unfounded claims of being "easier", "better", or "simpler", they are nothing of the sort and anyone actually qualified to write HTML and CSS should see that almost immediately.

Take claims like "consistent code other can understand" -- that's what semantics exist for, and if using proper semantics the use of selectors and combinators instead of pissing classes on everything is "too hard", then the defenders of this scam artist framework bullshit don't know enough HTML or CSS to be working in the field at all.

BINGO! Again, how is two to twenty times the code "easier" to work with?

I'm not even certain what you mean by that, but then again 90%+ of the stuff people throw JavaScript at falls into at least one of three categories:

1) Stuff HTML and CSS have never needed JS to do in over a decade. (mobile menus, collapsable sections, flyouts, modal menus)

2) Stuff I can do with a fraction the JS by letting HTML or CSS do my heavy lifting. (Night/day toggles, enhancing forms)

3) Stuff that has zero damned business on a website in the first place if you care in the slightest about accessibility and usability! (controlling layout from JS, JS only forms, goofball animated crap, SPA / scripting only content)

Thanks for the bump,; I forgot about this thread... and have written at length on medium about how mind-numbingly dumbass frameworks are. You think Bootcrap is bad, just wait for Failwind.

https://medium.com/codex/more-tailwind-junk-the-starter-kit-6bf4a77a50f4

https://medium.com/codex/bootstraps...ir-blog-template-as-vanilla-code-22539acaa68e
https://medium.com/codex/bootstraps...a-rewrite-of-their-blog-template-43d818ca38d1

https://medium.com/codex/from-the-bootstrap-garbage-bin-sticky-footer-and-pricing-15291dea6a78

https://medium.com/codex/thinking-in-react-somebodys-not-thinking-17a08b7ddc01

https://medium.com/codex/stop-fight...ts-with-these-dumbass-frameworks-91732f5993c7

https://medium.com/codex/more-tailw...rewrites-1-of-who-knows-how-many-36e1ff5b6bd6

https://medium.com/codex/tailwind-to-vanilla-2-two-shining-examples-262b640e044d

https://medium.com/codex/pure-css-more-like-pure-junk-1ec2d26a1122

Most of those articles include rewrites that illustrate just how utterly asinine the "frameworks" are, and how nobody using them -- even their creators -- seem to be able to write a single damned line of HTML properly.

 

So the immediate next thing I did was to convert the stylesheets to sass, write a ten line code bundler, so that the various pieces don't end up repeated in parallel on different pages and I should have all of the lousy markup converted to simple semantic markup by EOD Monday including getting links and menus to work and responsive breakpoints.