Peter, I think the same, a good looking white-grey default theme would be perfect as default. Then people could customize or change theme.
Thanks 2016-06-15 16:06 GMT+02:00 Peter Ent <p...@adobe.com>: > After looking over the Material stuff and seeing what the FlexJS Basic > component set is capable of, I think a grayscale theme would be best. It > would be neutral to allow browser-specific colors in controls and focus > while still providing a decent look to the components. > > I'll let everyone know when I have something. > > Thanks for the input and keep it coming. More comments from me inline, > below. > > ‹peter > > On 6/15/16, 4:57 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira" > <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> > wrote: > > >I think as well that Material Design should be the base and Bootstrap > >would > >be good as well, but for me in second place. > >For SWF, I think FlexJS is more about HTML, so I will put all my efforts > >in > >good-looking HTML and let SWF version to be wireframe looking with the > >recipients to make the work, but postpone that work for a later time or if > >people come to volunteer in that part. > > I don't think this is a bad idea, really. SWF can still be used to debug. > As long as the items take up the same space and are placed correctly, not > having the right style complexity could be a OK - for the basic component > set. Once you start getting more complex you'll expect the SWF and HTML > sides to be closer, I think. > > > > >Thanks > > > >2016-06-15 9:11 GMT+02:00 jude <flexcapaci...@gmail.com>: > > > >> 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Carlos Rovira > >Director General > >M: +34 607 22 60 05 > >http://www.codeoscopic.com > >http://www.avant2.es > > > > > >Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener > >información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje por > >error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y > >proceda a su destrucción. > > > >De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le > >comunicamos > >que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es CODEOSCOPIC > >S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del > >servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso, > >rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a > >nuestras > >oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación > >necesaria. > > -- Carlos Rovira Director General M: +34 607 22 60 05 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.avant2.es Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le comunicamos que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es CODEOSCOPIC S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a nuestras oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación necesaria.
