Is responding to a site with Bootstrap a design flaw?

Is responsiving to a site with Bootstrap a design flaw?
Is it possible to respond with css code without Bootstrap?
is it hard?

 

It is very possible.
Personally, I feel building a responsive theme without bootstrap is more difficult. I have done it before, though frontend is not fun for me, that project was worse.

However @deathshadow is much more experienced in this and has a different thought on it

 

Bootcrap is... well...

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

And it looks to only get worse

https://deathshadow.medium.com/bootcrap-5-and-the-derp-goes-on-e2d8be2c5c1e

There's nothing bootcrap can do that plain HTML and CSS cannot; for an obvious reason, it's written in HTML and CSS. It just so happens to be a train wreck laundry list of how NOT to write HTML and CSS, due to the use of presentational classes, and the simple fact that how it works and the examples they provide clearly show that the people who CREATED it are unqualified to write a single blasted line of HTML!

That said, I'd probably be able to better dial in an answer if the OP's post wasn't a broken Engrish moist goodry me love you long time.

 

Building a highly functional and responsive dashboard theme with bootstrap is very easy. Otherwise, it would take a lot of effort and struggle to do that.

 

Methinks we have different definitions of the words functional, responsive, and easy...

And if it's a lot of "effort and struggle" without bootcrap, you don't know enough HTML or CSS to build a theme for diddly squat. Dimes to dollars it's a bloated, slow loading, inaccessible wreck...

Since that's what bootcrap specializes in given how it uses presentational classes; given the raging chodo most people seem to have for dragging practice back to the worst of HTML 3.2!

https://deathshadow.medium.com/why-...or-html-css-are-ignorant-garbage-bcfdb02ec397

 

Yet again you're posting crap that has nothing to with what the OP is asking, I understand you are just trying to spam some bootcrap dashboard theme but it's not working, you should realise that by now.

 

The problem with today's developer world is:
You know your HTML/CSS/JS well, you know the best practices, you understand separating design from content etc.
Your bosses/teammates force Bootstrap for example.
You are forced to play along, and more so, you will get the job if you know those frameworks/libraries that are listed in job requirements. The fact that you have advanced knowledge of technologies you need are less valued than having knowledge of various frameworks/libraries that grow and expand on daily basis. Sad...

I mean I work in Angular-based-project team for years, and 2-3 times a year we need to rewrite our code, when Angular releases new version.. It's insane!

Back to your original question: I would highly recommend you learn to do it without any framework, especially Bootstrap. If you build your own project, don't use Bootstrap. It will take more time initially, but hey, learning takes time.

 

hi. I created this site jahanyaragh.com with Bootstrap and it was much easier than coding it completely with CSS. In my opinion, using Bootstrap is a blessing for developers

 

Right out of the gate even a cursory visual inspection screams you don't know enough about design to be building websites. Absurdly undersized fixed-metric (px) font-sizes, illegible colour contrasts, strange broken slideshow rubbish, and a broken (likely again thanks to PX screwing with things) attempt at being responsive. Everything I'd expect when you step in bootcrap and track it all over the web's carpets.

That the code for such a ridiculously simple website is 703k when there's no reason for it to be more than 64k supports the argument that it's incompetent trash. If you think that is how a website should have been written -- especially with loading bootcrap twice (once on its own, once embedded), and 228k of additional CSS (42k of which is CSS pre-processor or other back-end generation errors) screams ineptitude when the entire SITE likely has no reason for more than 32k of code in TOTAL.

Just like the absurd 36k of markup for less than 5k of plaintext and 32 content media, not even 12k of markup's flipping job!

And that's before we even talk about the gibberish heading orders making non-visual and alternative navigation a nightmare. Whoever told you it's ok to start a page with an H5 needs a boot up the patoot!

Thus the markup -- being around three times what's needed -- was in no way, shape, or form any easier than vanilla coding. Because it's bloated inaccessible trash! And no, throwing the ITEMPROP garbage at every blasted tag didn't make it any better.

This is all reflected in said site's lighthouse scores of 80/82/96/86 mobile and 99/72/93/82 desktop.

Other bad practices like presentational images in the markup, images without alt, links lacking discernable names, raster images doing vector's job in the UI and/or undersized dimensions, no description META...

This is what I'm talking about people! So utterly devoid of the most basic of concepts and practices, that the author CLEARLY doesn't know enough about HTML and CSS to even flap their trap about what "easy" is!

Because if you thought that was "easy" do yourself a huge honking favor, AND LEARN HTML AND CSS!

As you clearly do not know anything about either.

Taking some time to learn the WCAG wouldn't hurt either. Because if you think font-size:15px and #FFF on #26BDC5 is "good design" you know not a blasted thing about design either!

Even just a simple tool like this:
https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/



Shows what an utter failure at the most basic of design concepts that site is. Just like this:



Shows that the markup is incompetent trash.

Just as this:

    <nav id="main-navigation" class="shadow-sm">
        <ul class="top-menu" itemscope='itemscope' itemtype='https://schema.org/SiteNavigationElement'>
            


        <li itemprop='name' class="">
                <a itemprop='url' href="/">جهان یراق</a>
                    </li>
        <li itemprop='name' class="">
                <a itemprop='url' href="/category/door-handle">دستگیره </a>
                            <ul class="drop-menu">
                            <li itemprop='name' class="">
                <a itemprop='url' href="/category/door-handle">دستگیره درب اتاق</a>
                            <ul class="drop-menu">
                            <li itemprop='name' class="">
                <a itemprop='url' href="/category/one-piece-handle">دستگیره پلاک</a>
                    </li>
        <li itemprop='name' class="">
                <a itemprop='url' href="/category/two-piece-handle">دستگیره رزت</a>
                    </li>

                </ul>
        </li>

Code (markup):

doing the job of this:

	<nav id="mainMenu">
		<ul>
			<li><a href="/">جهان یراق</a></li>
			<li>
				<a href="/category/door-handle">دستگیره</a>
				<ul>
					<li>
						<a href="/category/door-handle">دستگیره درب اتاق</a>
						<ul>
							<li><a href="/category/one-piece-handle">دستگیره پلاک</a></li>
							<li><a href="/category/two-piece-handle">دستگیره رزت</a></li>
						</ul>
					</li>

Code (markup):

Puts to lie the very notion that anything you've learned about site building is in any way, shape, or form factual.

NOT that I'd have dropdowns nested so deeply either, but then I abandoned dropdowns as inaccessible garbage well over a decade and a half ago. I can't believe people still do that.

But then I can't believe anyone is still gullible enough to think any of these chazerei "framework stupid" is worth a damn!

Bootcrap, failwind, and all the other front-end 'framework stupid"? It's all LIES!!! The only reason anyone things it's simpler, easier, "better for collaboration" or "less work" is being utterly, totally, and completely devoid of even understanding the most basic of HTML and CSS concepts.

Taking a steaming dump on the HTML to say what things look like isn't the answer people!

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

 

Absolutely not! Responsiveness is a crucial aspect of modern web design, and utilizing frameworks like Bootstrap can actually be a smart choice. Bootstrap offers a comprehensive set of pre-built components, grids, and responsive utilities that make it easier to create responsive web pages without reinventing the wheel.

While Bootstrap provides a solid foundation for responsive design, it's important to note that responsiveness is not solely dependent on Bootstrap. It's possible to achieve responsiveness without Bootstrap by writing custom CSS code. In fact, many developers prefer to create their own CSS styles tailored to their specific project requirements.

However, building responsive designs from scratch can be time-consuming and requires a deep understanding of CSS media queries, breakpoints, and other responsive techniques. Bootstrap simplifies this process by providing a framework that takes care of the heavy lifting, allowing developers to focus more on customization and functionality.

Ultimately, the choice between using Bootstrap or writing custom CSS depends on the project's requirements, timeline, and the developer's skill set. Both approaches have their merits, and it's crucial to select the approach that best aligns with your project goals and constraints.

So, whether you choose to leverage Bootstrap's responsive features or opt for a custom CSS approach, achieving responsiveness is definitely within your reach. Embrace the flexibility and possibilities that responsive design offers, and create stunning web experiences that adapt seamlessly to various devices and screen sizes!

Keep innovating and happy coding!