Building on top of roots-css to create a bootstrap alternative about axis

[jescalan]

As it stands, roots-css offers a very large library of css helpers, and if you explore a bit you'll find a mixin called framework(), which automatically applies a bunch of styles for html elements as a default for mocking out basic sites. If you use the framework mixin with the grid system, you have almost a bootstrap alternative already. This was intended for basic wireframes in the beginning stages.

To answer the question though, I actually very purposely do not want to do this. Bootstrap for me is an awful creation that I would never want to be responsible for. Most of bootstrap's users are people who really do not understand web development, have no appreciation for design, and just want to hack together a website as quick as they can and with as little effort possible. I see bootstrap sites all over the web that are absolute junk, all the time. Because it's easy enough to use bootstrap that you can do that.

What I've done, quite consciously with roots, is to raise the barrier to entry up just a very tiny bit - enough so that those looking to make a website with no knowledge or effort involved will move on quickly, but designers and developers who have some experience will recognize the value and pick it up quickly.

I could, with a small amount more effort, turn roots into a bootstrap alternative, but this in my mind would be like trading my soul for popularity. I'm sure that if I did, I'd get a big rush of people coming to use roots. However, the majority of these people would be the type described above -- people looking for a pill that they can take and it will make it so that you don't need any skills or practice to make websites. Then roots would be responsible, at least partly, for polluting the web with more junky template sites, which would make me feel sad about my life.

Let me end this short manifesto with a quote from Jay-Z, a great artist who made a decision that I don't respect.

"I dumbed down for my audience, to double my dollars"
-- Jay-Z, Moment of Clarity

Some people are in it for the money and fame. Others are in it for love, craft, and to make the world a better place. I like to think that I'm chasing the latter.

[Charuru]

I agree with you about art. However popularity is valuable in of itself because of the network effect and ability to get contributions. Traditional media like songs or paintings are not like platforms. I hope you can think about it a little bit differently, though I appreciate that you're coming from a very different place. You want to create a great work in of itself, while I just want the best possible css platform to use.

[jescalan]

I am fine with roots being popular and getting great contributions -- in fact with the limited amount of exposure it's had so far, I've been thrilled with the quality of feedback and contributions there have been. What I'm opposed to, particularly, is making roots shittier just for the sake of popularity. If I were to do this, the additional contributions I'd get would be lower quality anyway. And it would make roots shittier, which I'm not down with.

I also want to note that you said...

You want to create a great work in of itself, while I just want the best possible css platform to use.

I don't see how these two statements are different. I also want to create the best possible css library you can use. If I did this, in my mind, that would be a great work in of itself. I've been working hard on roots-css, and I think it's getting there. If you have any suggestions on how it could be better, I would welcome them - feedback is so valuable. But if the suggestion is "make it more boilerplate-y so that it's less flexible and easier to use for people who don't understand css", my answer will always be "no". And if you still think I'm an idiot and want to do it yourself, that's what the fork button is for 😄

[Charuru]

How about some simple stuff like a default background color and text color?

[jescalan]

There's no "default" background and text colors, every site has their own colors based on the design style. The default background color is white and the default text color is black, which is already the case. I have a mixin called base() that has default text styles (aliasing, size, fonts) and is included in every roots template already, if that's what you're after. It's also quite simple to add a text and background color yourself, not something that requires a mixin etc.

body
  background: #fff
  color: #333

I'm afraid if you want someone else to decide the text color and background color of your site for you, roots is not the tool you are after. A designer and some basic css knowledge can take care of this for you 👍

[Charuru]

I'm only talking about the defaults. You know that the default link color in framework() is blue? It's unreadable on white, which is why I assumed you would want to have a background color.

[jescalan]

How is blue unreadable on white? I don't understand...

[Charuru]

You chose a light version of blue that's low contrast and unreadable. Though that's not really pertinent to this topic, sorry for the confusion.

[jescalan]

It's ok. But I think it's possible that you overrode the color, or your monitor is seriously screwed up, because the contrast is very much sufficient on any and every monitor I've seen it on. If you create a fresh roots project and still are unable to see the blue correctly, could you take a screenshot and open a separate issue?