What I ran into with the drop in themes is that they sometimes change the size and shape of the components. I had a project where I dropped in FlatUI and the elements were all cut off because the width and height were explicitly set. It wasn't hard to fix after the fact but some things weren't sized and positioned where as I expected. The only thing I can add to this is to make sure the UI in the SWF and HTML match as closely as possible.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 6/14/16, 3:25 PM, "jude" <flexcapaci...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >If you're using the default HTML elements I would have no expectation. I > >would expect the developer or designer to add their own skin set like > >FlatUI at a later time. > > > >But if you want a default style I would think there might be a happy > >medium > >with SVG skins. A while back Om made a SVG skin that looked identical to > >the Spark Button skin. It wouldn't be as much work as a full skinning set > >because the components aren't aware of them (they are backgrounds) but > >it's > >easy to see what was going on and how to change them. > > > >Pseudo states > >https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Pseudo-classes > > > >Is the goal for the SWF and the HTML UI to look exactly the same? > > Yes, it is a goal. > > Seems like we should try to do Material, but in my quick reading, it > allows for lots of different implementations, which is good because maybe > we can create a simple enough version for our current CSS support. Looks > like there are a bunch of different Material UI frameworks out there. > Supporting them out-of-the-box would be cool, but in looking at a few > github repos, it looks like they are also not relying on simple/single > HTMLElements. In general, Material and Bootstrap designers want to style > a few things that CSS doesn't allow you to style such as the actual radio > or check visuals in radio buttons and check boxes, so they wrap a radio or > check with a bunch of other stuff to make it work. What I think we want > for our basic set is the nicest possible look you can get without all of > that wrapping. Is the browser-native radio and check in violation of the > Material spec? If so, we may need to do some "approximating". > > Supporting Material as SVG might also be cool, but IMO, loading all of > those background doesn't make for the minimal set. But definitely worth > pursuing as a separate theme/component set. > > -Alex > >
