mddw

As such, it has legitimates uses in rare cases (a responsive websites with some javascript style changes specific to a breakpoint per exemple.)

I would personally say that what divides good and bad guys is opinionated though.

Mainly web sites, some webapps, some native apps.

I know some users. I don't know if they are ordinary. I think they are. My parents in their 50's. A grandmother of 80. Some friends which are 30 with a very average computer literacy.

Every one of them took fast with the iPad (that's how Apple is good), but no one of 'em'll fill 16gb of space.

Nice use of Comic Sans in the presentation. Wonder if he paid the licence or used Powerpoint.

Nice post though, I did not know about GendBuntu ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GendBuntu

First, Bootstrap did not standardize anything. It's a biased perspective to think so : most websites and most developpers don't even know about bootstrap. And those who know about it do not necessarily agree with it (per exemple I hate their JS coding style.)

Second, the myth about "changing your design without touching HTML". Sure, there're some cases where it's possible, but by experience it won't happen. Never. Sadly (or not), a redesign is always coupled with some HTML changes. Bootstrap does not change anything.

So, I think Bootstrap is far less important than, say, Wordpress was. It's a cool tool, useful for a "design dumb" like me to pull a quick demo without a true designer, but in the end it makes boring websites with boring code. It's also a overhyped tool, which won't survive (along with the whole stupid OOCSS thing.)

It's really a big accessibility problem. I can't read this article without using the Chrome inspector to change styles.

And I'm far from being visually Impaired.

Sorry, but it must be said.

What's the point to use shims or polyfills if it means including some others libraries ?

JQuery is not slow. If you .addClass() two hundred divs, sure. But for basic DOM manipulations, it's fine.

JQuery is not heavy. 32kb. It may be in cache. You'll likely gain that twice 32kb by optimizing your png.

This anti-JQuery war is a silly fad started by people who don't make websites.

And as per arguments like "a fadein should not be mandatory blablabla", explain it to the client. It may work. Or it may not.

Been there, done that. And it's a pain in the *

You'll find yourself needing a method to add or remove classes eficiently. So you'll rewrite .addClass() and .removeClass()

Then you'll need a clean way to make Ajax and callbacks. You'll rewrite .ajax() and .when()

Then you'll need to fade something in all browser. So you'll rewrite .animate()

Ad lib.

JQuery Minified and GZipped is 35k (not 90 as the op said, ignoring the gziping.) JQuery is cached in most browsers. The performance hit is not worth the pain of re-inventing the wheel.

The problem is not JQuery, it's bad code. Bad code won't magically disappear in vanilla JS.

42 is a programmer school, totally free of charge, with a "peer to peer" approach to education (whatever it means)

It'll take 4000 students and, after a marathon month (15 hours of programming a day), keeps the 1000 best.

The back button is heavily used, even without gestures/mouse.

Moreover these developers are not in the hype bandwagon (or they would be able to read SASSy/LESSy/whatever fashionable now), so they may need the most the said tutorials.

"our shared host is PHP only, we don't want to change for another" "we want wordpress" "our computer guys know a little PHP, we need PHP" "what the fuck is Ruby ?"

So you'll try to educate your client, to explain why Ruby us great. But you'll fail, because most clients don't give a shit and, for their very basic needs, PHP is as good as ruby.

It often strikes me, reading these tutorials about RWD, than the authors know all very well the theory but have never done a real (ie for a client) responsive website in their life.

It's all generic and general stuff, never how a stupid menu can be a real bother when you have to support two different states, touch and mouse, users without javascript, changing states, IE9 with no CSS3 transition support, etc.

Tutorials show you the easy way, the way which works only for cable users with a fancy Macbook and the last Safari or 4G iPhone users.

In real RWD, what should be easy becomes hard, and nobody'll tell you that.

(btw, i'm not a RWD hater. I just want to warn about its realities.)

Seriously, developing for multiple density is hard in the real world. Way harder then this article says.

It's far from "all" you need to know about transitions (delay, quirks of 3D transform regarding backface visibility...)

Moreover it's quite weak on cross-browser compatibility and performance.

I had to make a website for a brand with strong sales in China. The client asked for a full IE6 support "because chinese use IE6 according to X and Y." IE6 support is expensive.

I was quite doubtful, the brand is a luxury one, kinda confidential, so the user had to belong to the new rich class which can afford a real computer. But they did not have any data and did not want me to gather data on their actual website to confirm or infirm my hypothesis.

The IE6 friendly website lauched. The stats reports less than 4% IE7 and less usage (including funny browser derived from IE.)