Hacker News Reader

> Having the design flat encourages you to build on it or theme it to your OWN style so all of the sites using Bootstrap don't end up looking the same

I don't want to build on it. My customers don't care that it looks like other sites, they just want something that looks professional and is easy to use, something which Bootstrap 2 does way better than I could do alone, and for which I am eternally grateful.

My customers range from a little to really non technical, so I think that "making them think" about what might be a button and what might be a label is a regression.

So if I want to upgrade, it's not just "encouragement" to customize, it's a necessity, and I consider it added work since I did not have to do it with the previous version of Bootstrap.

Hopefully, the theme mentioned in the article will suit my needs.

> With that said, well done everyone that helped on the project! Great work! :)

I can agree with that! I am very thankful for Bootstrap.

I completely understand what you are saying, and they have already solved your problem. You can still easily grab the V2 theme to lay on top of V3 to generate all those pre-done styles. The beauty is that it's no longer forced in V3 for people that do want to build up, like it was in V2. It's a win-win! ;)

As tsurantino said in another comment, see here: http://getbootstrap.com/examples/theme/

Yeah, it's probably good enough, although it still seems kind of flat-ish:

http://getbootstrap.com/2.3.2/base-css.html#buttons compared to http://getbootstrap.com/examples/theme/

It was kind of them to make the extra effort though, for those of us who are happier with the older look and feel. Just a bit more like actual buttons, and it'd be perfect.

The button gradients are toned down a little, but they're still there. It's still closer to the v2 style than it is to flat.

The gradients are more subtle in that theme. You could always stick with v2 if that works for you and your users. It's a starter template so it's not something that you must upgrade (unless you need support but I'm sure v2 is pretty solid by now).

Honestly, the differences look fairly indistinguishable to me.

>I don't want to build on it

Well then, get a theme. That's the point of something that's meant to be a framework. You're not the only person using it and it's easier for you to download a theme than it is for people that don't use it as-is to reverse engineer the whole thing.

Well, if you dont want to customize you may well just use one of the themes that will soon spring up. Maybe these will help http://bootswatch.com/

In fact, Bootswatch already supports v3, and for themes that support both, it handles that appropriately too.

The theme mentioned in the article seems to be keeping around the "faux-3D" concept of the look and feel with Bootstrap 2.x and below. So I think you're in the clear. Incidentally, you shouldn't need to worry about upgrading because it seems as though even with this "flat" approach, Bootstrap is still relatively easy to look at and defines borders/sections relatively obviously.

I'm personally a big fan of the opens-as-you-scroll sidebar navigation. Really cool for single-page apps!

they said they will ship v3 with a v2-ish look example.It's already there if you check the example theme.

http://getbootstrap.com/examples/theme/

You can just stick to v2, you know?

And v3 will come with a v2 template.

Seriously, no. I don't care what the rationale is, compare these two pages:

http://getbootstrap.com/ http://getbootstrap.com/2.3.2/

The first is infinitely more confusing to the eye. There's no heirarchy; I don't know where to look. The second is clean while still giving me a sense of where I need to go to accomplish what I'd like to accomplish.

Both pages show the exact same content with relatively small positioning changes. For me, however, the new version is definitely more pleasant to look at.

That being said, Bootstrap is supposed to be a starting point, not the final style. Going flat means less work for us developers when we start styling their components.

I agree with this completely. Before v.3 I was forced to turn to Designmodo's Flat UI just so I could do simple things like changing the color of the navbar without also tackling a million different gradients and effects (granted I'm not a designer or developer).

Try going past the front pages:

http://getbootstrap.com/getting-started/

http://getbootstrap.com/2.3.2/getting-started.html

The low-contrast trend is really being shown here. I don't get why it's so popular. We've got left navigation with grey text on a grey background, no borders, no underlines indicating that they are link. The top bar is purple, with a purple hero board just below it. It's low-contrast city... and I have no idea where my eye should go.

Bootstrap 3 looks old and Bootstrap 2 looks new.

I'm no web designer, just a developer with a casual interest.

Can you explain what this low-contrast thing is all about? Why would anyone think this was a good idea, except perhaps for UI elements that were explicitly disabled.

An overreach of form over function. Looks Apple-ish, but some just take that to the extreme and sacrifice readability.

Concerned web devs are trying to raise awareness about it:

http://contrastrebellion.com/

I can't speak for every designer, and it is possible that the shift is entirely a visual trend based on rebelling from the past trends.

My justification for keeping the interface low contrast is to emphasize content. Keep in mind that getbootstrap.com is designed for web designers and developers—most of whom will be familiar with traditional web design. Menus are in obvious places and don't need to be called out.

Take the alternative to the extreme: if we need color to show us clickable elements should we have flashing underlines? Gifs that move arrows back and forth?

> interface low contrast to emphasize content

I can certainly see that. Do you count "main body text" as 'content' in your designs?

I can imagine myself working with a web design until I was sick of seeing lorem ipsum. This might lead me to under-value 'content' from the perspective of the reader. You think such a phenomenon happens with web designers?

Or could it be that Apple did some kind of brainwave analysis on rats (or users :-) and determined that low-contrast was better for some purpose, then the design community just cargoculted it?

> I can certainly see that. Do you count "main body text" as 'content' in your designs?

I make an effort to never use placeholder text that doesn't at least closely resemble the real (or intended) content. This might just be me, but I'm pretty sure it's common amongst better designers: building something around fake data is much harder than building something 'real'.

> You think such a phenomenon happens with web designers?

Absolutely.

> brainwave analysis on rats (or users :-)

If Art and HCI are on opposing ends of a spectrum of interface design I've always been a bit closer to art—so my experience with testing ends at formal user interviews and guerrilla-coffee-shop tests. It's not a stretch to imagine the big tech companies doing brainwave analysis (and I'd be thrilled to participate at any level, it's seriously cool stuff).

> design community just cargoculted it?

Like any community, designers react to the trends of their peers, but a competent designer can defend pretty much any decision, which makes it hard to tell the difference between 'doing something familiar but wrong' and 'following trends that are right'.

You're right - the second one really starts to shine there, doesn't it. The colors are more alive and vivid and less washed-out looking.

I wonder why they went with that transparent button then.

That's a problem with whoever designed the new landing page then, not a problem with Bootstrap 3.0.

I think the header and main button could contrast more with the rest of the page, but otherwise think the current landing page is much better. And by "contrast" I don't necessarily mean color-wise.

I'd be curious how you'd react to something like this http://cl.ly/image/3A3O3Y2w2Y3i vs. http://cl.ly/image/40431N2q470M

The old page is pretty gross, IMO. If the current page is like an auditorium so quiet you're straining to hear something then the old page is like an auditorium where everyone is jabbering away. On the old design I see contrast in weight, size, alignment, and color, and that's just above the fold.

Personally, I'm glad they're not making web pages look like tombstones out of the box with that center-justified layout. I think the left-aligned new redesign is much sleeker.

Its a starting point, you're supposed to style it to your own taste. The dryer the better. Why are people still expecting a style machine our of B3.

And for people who are still concerned (and even though this is mentioned directly in the post - some people won't necessarily read it). There is a theme provided, which I personally think improves on Bootstrap 2's version.

http://getbootstrap.com/examples/theme/

The subtle color enhancements are nice (nothing like lowering contrast to make things look classier) but the button hovers appear broken.. that was an important bit of sparkle in twbs2 I hope 'twas just an oversight.

The hovers work, but they are so subtle you will barely notice it. I had to get very close to my monitor to notice on colors other than the default greyish white.

You can see a slight darkening around the edges; it's easiest to see on the default gray button. I agree: this needs to a be a stronger indicator.

They've acknowledged broken hovers as a bug, good ones are slated to return in 3.0.1 https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/9879

I also agree. The cue on the colored buttons is nowhere near noticeable enough.

Exactly. I also do not care for the flat stuff most of the time. The old design was much clearer and more defined. But the entire idea of starting with minimal base that you build up from is by far worth the trade off for me. I don't expect bootstrap to design my site for me anyway.

A dumb 'trend' that's been around for decades.

And agreed on your points. I'm looking forward to no longer having to override superfluous elements for the sake of customization.

Now they're going to all look the same...but worse!