pepperstreet VIP
Total posts: 3,832
14 Mar 2014 01:03

Hello Sergey,

I would really appreciate your opinion on the WARP7 framework/template you are using on "MintJoomla 2.0". It would be nice to read some experiences and if there were any major issues. I already have made a quick test with an early WARP7 version, but that is far from a real-world project like your extensive MintJoomla homepage.

So, if there is any free time or you consider some experience as "very crucial", I would like to hear some comments from you.

Thanks in advance! And rock-on ;)

Last Modified: 20 Nov 2015


pepperstreet VIP
Total posts: 3,832
14 Mar 2014 01:14

Some notes from my side (as far as I recall them)

  1. Section Menu
    I remember there were some visual glitches in the section menu (nav bar). The drop-down menu had some mixed styles. But it worked.

  2. Also no problem with expand/collapse of Advanced Search area, nor with Tooltips. (fortunately no bootstrap collision, because of UIKIT)

  3. Bootstrap vs. UIKIT:
    How did you go about Bootstrap loading? Did you disable it in WARP template settings, and used Cobalt compatibility mode?


Sergey
Total posts: 13,744
14 Mar 2014 06:49

UIKIT is the real issue. It loads bootstrap 2 times. One from theme and one from Joomal because UIKIT's bootstrap fail in some areas. So I have to turn on compatibility mode on.

To be true I am not highly satisfied.

UIKIT. The question is why? Ok you think you know better how to create bootstrap like framework, do it. But do not use with Joomla as Joomla uses Bootstrap. And if your UIKIT is bootstrap compatible anyway, why should I use it at all and not simply use bootstrap?

I mean there are many questions.

If I have more time I would create custom template without template framework or something. Only minimum. 2 CSS files only.


pepperstreet VIP
Total posts: 3,832
14 Mar 2014 15:33

Sergey UIKIT. The question is why?

Agree. Actually it is a "clone" of BS3 plus a "clone" of FontAwesome4. They added own namespace and classes, and some javascripts and fx. It is well-done, but I asked myself the same question – Why?

I could imagine, they want independence and cross-compatibility between there own products:
Joomla / WordPress / PageKit CMS

So, portability and releases take much less time and man-power.


Sergey
Total posts: 13,744
17 Mar 2014 05:20

pepperstreet So, portability and releases take much less time and man-power.

True. But not. Why? It simply transfr some man power to the end user. Now those who use it have to spend more time.

It is just not possible to me to make one framework that would perfectly work on all platforms.

But any way I do not have trouble in my heart regarding this.


pepperstreet VIP
Total posts: 3,832
17 Mar 2014 16:12

Sergey It simply transfr some man power to the end user. Now those who use it have to spend more time.

Yep! On the other hand it is "clever". If you cook your own soup, you don't have to care about others. And keeping up-to-date with major CMS/plattform releases seems to be easier for them. Personally, I am not a fan of this behavior, especially when it lives in an open-source eco-space. Somehow it seems to work for them and pays.

Section-Menu + DropDowns: Did you change your template markup to UIKIT?


Sergey
Total posts: 13,744
18 Mar 2014 03:28

pepperstreet Did you change your template markup to UIKIT?

No. I eneabled compatibility mode.


pepperstreet VIP
Total posts: 3,832
11 Oct 2015 23:07

Glad you have enabled the mobile/offcanvas menu :) ;)

One issue remains, I am still missing the login.
The initial menu item is hidden on small devices by CSS. And there is no login module in the offcanvas position.


There is a minor CSS glitch with the small logo text.
The following class has a negative letter spacing: .tm-logo-small

mj_homepage_warp_small_screen_logo_title


Probably an issue because of an older WARP version:
A current windows phone browser is not detected correctly. It shows an annoying error message.
AFAIK, I do not get this on updated WARP framework.


pepperstreet VIP
Total posts: 3,832
28 Oct 2015 19:16

Sergey We had very massive update of mintjoomla.com website. Joomla from 3.2 to 3.4.5, template, Cobalt and Emerald first update for last year. It all looks fine, but if you discover any error, please report on the forum.

Great news.

pepperstreet A current windows phone browser is not detected correctly. It shows an annoying error message.

Finally template and WARP seems to be up-to-date. NO error message :)


pepperstreet One issue remains, I am still missing the login. The initial menu item is hidden on small devices by CSS. And there is no login module in the offcanvas position.

There is a minor CSS glitch with the small logo text. The following class has a negative letter spacing: .tm-logo-small

Would you mind to have a look at these "smaller" issues, too?
Thanks in advance.


Jeff VIP
Total posts: 745
29 Oct 2015 03:21

My 2 cents

I have been using a customised version of YT-Digit (Warp7) since I have been using Cobalt, and I am very pleased with it. UIKIT saved me a lot of time to get certain things done, like improving Cobalt's front end interface.

The Warp7 framework gives you a lot to tweak with, so you can make your template as lean or fat as you want. I love how you can finetune grid sizes and the behaviour of elements to accomodate different screen sizes, hereby overcoming many of BS2 shortcomings. All with just simple markup. You just have to dig into it.

There's still plenty of room for improvement though, as with any piece of software.

Custom templating is probably the best option if you want lean code and total control, but the Warp7 framework saved me a lot of time creating and adjusting the look, feel and behaviour for my website.


Sergey
Total posts: 13,744
29 Oct 2015 05:52

Actualy this scares me to death regarding Cobalt 9. It is going to be frontend extension just like Emerald, an d with those template own styles, there are going to be a lot of problems.

I am so sorry Joomla lacks of ocnsistency in this kind of things. They could update to BS3 and everythign would be fine. All developers would update their extensions very quickly because it is minimum amount of work.

To use Bootstrap was the only good desision by joomla unlike Mootols, PatTemplate, Moonicons, ... and other choices. But ewven this good choice was spoiled.


pepperstreet VIP
Total posts: 3,832
29 Oct 2015 07:53

Jeff My 2 cents

Very much appreciated! Thanks, Jeff.

Sergey Actualy this scares me to death regarding Cobalt 9. It is going to be frontend extension just like Emerald, an d with those template own styles, there are going to be a lot of problems.

Maybe time to make a cut and go your own "route". ( Like yootheme always does and did in the past ;) )
You might remember my concerns and (first) thoughts about UIKIT v1 ...
maybe time to think over and to have a closer look. It is getting better, seems to collect the best BS features and even adds some interesting things and features. Not to mention, it is name-spaced.
The only drawback in the near future: v3 won't be an upgrade. It seems to be a total rewrite ( you know... the yootheme policy ;) ).

On the other hand, if you choose Bootstrap 3 for frontend, you might have a similar result. BS4 is in front of the door... incl. SASS


Sergey
Total posts: 13,744
30 Oct 2015 04:03

You know, somehow I am not in favor of any Yoo products. I just do not like it.

But your are right. I have to think of independent way. Although this ideas is rediculous. I'll use UIKIT, another extension BS3 and template BS2. So site have to looad all of thet? And how user will make display look & feel consistant?

The way this particular trend is going, do not make me happy at all. I remember old times for Joomla how ugly it was and how much wark you had to do to make look & feel conctant through all Joomla extensions you are using. I do not even what to be a part of that mess anymore.


pepperstreet VIP
Total posts: 3,832
30 Oct 2015 04:28

Sergey I have to think of independent way.

Yep, probably. Or try to reduce the depencencies.
I mean, think twice about what is REALLY needed to run Cobalt and Emerald. Do you need a big CSS framework or just a minimum for UI/form styling. Maybe plus the basic responsive grid feature.

The drawback of every framework: It forces you to insert pre-made classes all over your code.
(not to mention the current integration of BS2 inside the J! framework and functions ;) )

Some thoughts:
For "independent" grid layout I could imagine to leave this option to the user and your templates.
i.e. template parameters for grid layout classes. Might include BS defaults... but overridable by the user.

Maybe hard to get such such "independance" for the forms part, because of more complex markup.
Maybe possible to outsource things in smaller templates? Or utilize something like the JLayout concept?


Sergey
Total posts: 13,744
30 Oct 2015 04:46

Yes, this is all possible. But to me it is like step backward. ANd i already feel very much behind stacked with Joomla, so it is really hard to make desision to make even step backward.

I am doing some other projects along the way and I know that contemporary way of development is to concentrate on functionality of your solution not on how it is going to look. I mean when you use BS3, Foundation, Material, Winjs, ... you can really concentrate on your code. Now I have to start working on every template, styles, test JS elements, make them independent and compatible. It is like +30% of work. But why should I do it? There is good frameworks that taks care fo that alreay? Only because Joomla team failed to implement one of those frameworks into and create strict guidance for developers?

I am sick of having troubles because of Joomla fails.


pepperstreet VIP
Total posts: 3,832
31 Oct 2015 11:32

Sergey I am sick of having troubles because of Joomla fails.

BTW, did you notice the latest discussions by OSM leaders(?) about "Ads" integration into Joomla!?!


Most likely the Bootstrap situation will not change until J! 4.x
Thus you could stay with the current BS v2 solution. At least for backend and frontend admin parts.
End-user templates might come in 2 flavors: BS2 and BS3
In regards of other template and extension developers, a BS v3 support makes sense for best compatibility.

Recently read the product description of Quick2Cart. Hence there "complete" Bootstrap compatibility options and parameters... (screenshot)


pepperstreet VIP
Total posts: 3,832
02 Nov 2015 11:19

FYI - Fabrik form and application builder also supports 2 bootstrap versions. For instance, they provide BS3 jLayout modifications). Related wiki

PS: Hence the mentioned issues with disappearing Tooltips. You are not alone! ;)


Jeff VIP
Total posts: 745
03 Nov 2015 01:02

Sergey You know, somehow I am not in favor of any Yoo products. I just do not like it.

But your are right. I have to think of independent way. Although this ideas is rediculous. I'll use UIKIT, another extension BS3 and template BS2. So site have to looad all of thet? And how user will make display look & feel consistant?

The way this particular trend is going, do not make me happy at all. I remember old times for Joomla how ugly it was and how much wark you had to do to make look & feel conctant through all Joomla extensions you are using. I do not even what to be a part of that mess anymore.

Oh man, Sergey....you were not in a very happy mood when you wrote this, were you?

Personally, if I don't like a product I don't use it. So no complaining here.

Like I mentioned earlier: you don't have to use all the gimmicks if you just dig into it. Interestingly, because I'm using a Warp template, it is easier for me to make the site look & feel more consistent. IMHO that's the whole purpose of using a template. Warp adds an xtra layer in order not to conflict with J's BS2 markup. I get that. Sure, it is a compromise. But it is the outcome of what users demanded from their template builder, hence embracing Joomla's spirit: from the people, for the people.

The introduction of BS2 in Joomla's eco-system was a positive game changer. A big leap towards consistency. I remember the pre BS2 days :-(

Making Cobalt look & feel the way I want has taken a lot of my production time. Mainly because of certain choices in Cobalt8's UI I'm not so happy with. But you know what? Despite Cobalt's "flaws" I am very happy to use it because it make me eager to create exactly what I want. :-)

As for the future of Joomla. They already started to create a lighter core by removing extensions. Keeping backwards compatibility makes things a bit more complicated. The choice of (a customised version of) BS2 as a framework was a bold decision because it creates possible dependencies regarding future updates. Joomla decided not to be dependent of that. Probably good for developers, not so good for the end user, who wants the latest candy.

@pepperstreet, thanks for analysing and comparing. It gives a good picture of the issues any developer faces these days.


Sergey
Total posts: 13,744
03 Nov 2015 10:05

Jeff Oh man, Sergey....you were not in a very happy mood when you wrote this, were you?

Sure. I wasn't :)

Jeff Personally, if I don't like a product I don't use it. So no complaining here.

This is simple to say. But people alwayts ask on the forum and they say I am as developer responsoble to make Cobalt compatible with any other extensions or templates. I know you do not think this way, but you read other topics so you know.

And was not saying that I do not like this job. I was saying about concepts and that joomla oficialy want to return to no bootstrap days. Then wat that eny developer could use any framework they what be it Foundation, Material, Winjs or Bootstrap. This was my complain. That days of mess are comming.

Jeff Joomla decided not to be dependent of that. Probably good for developers, not so good for the end user, who wants the latest candy.

I agree that customized BS was junky idea and I told that to Kyle when he was developing idea prototype. But as usual, nobody listen to sound judgment in Joomla leadership. This was another time when they made bad desicion against all lcommunity suggestions.

The idea of BS was just to keep it updated, it means it would be BS 3 for a year already and may be even BS4 additional library for those who prepare the shift.

But my believe is that you cannot go without a choice here. You have to chose either BS or Foundation or whatever else. But there have to be a rule for the sake of consitancy.

pepperstreet BTW, did you notice the latest discussions by OSM leaders(?) about "Ads" integration into Joomla!?!

Do not even start! When I first heard this I looked at calendar to make sure it is not 1 April. I was sure it is a joke but then I was surely pissed off.


Jeff VIP
Total posts: 745
03 Nov 2015 11:34

Sergey But my believe is that you cannot go without a choice here. You have to chose either BS or Foundation or whatever else. But there have to be a rule for the sake of consitancy.

Totally agree, but also for the sake of compatibility.

There should be standard template, like Protostar, for developers to use as a reference. If an application works 100% with this template and users complain about compatibility when using other templates, they should address this with the template builder, not the application developer.


Sergey
Total posts: 13,744
04 Nov 2015 09:49

Thank you Jeff :) I feel like am not along here.

Replay Topic
Uploading
Click here to upload and insert file from you hard drive: (png, gif, jpg, jpeg, zip, txt, rar)
Powered by Cobalt