Testing Bootstrap 2.30!
-
Topic
-
http://blog.getbootstrap.com/2013/02/07/bootstrap-2-3-released/
Anyone notice anything broken? Overall I think nope.
One thing though. Thanks to a accessibility guy from Opera they have made it so that all :hover declarations now also have :focus. Github has the info but this is what made him suggest http://24ways.org/2009/dont-lose-your-focus/ Idea is to re-enable “outline” feature AFTER it is disabled. To enable navigation via keyboard without using visually nasty tricks like outline. Result: potentially funky 🙂 Sliders for example, forward/back icons/buttons. They work on “a” element so might need to be checked. Possible
xxxxx:focus { text-decoration: none }
Boils down to 1 line difference:
For current BS in JS
a:hover {
color: #005580;
text-decoration: underline;
}BS 2.30 use this
a:hover, a:focus { color: #005580; text-decoration: underline; }
But that is all so far. Not really possible or meaningful to test everything but it seems safe. Version 3 is another matter.
Btw. for the 1 or 2 digging micro optimization or running super popular sites AND use Netdna CDN for BS. Dont! They messed up 2.3.0 big time. http://netdna.bootstrapcdn.com/ You want “Complete Bootstrap CSS (Without Icons)” and perhaps even FontAwesome. Both work with JS. All latest versions. So cool. And then not! Try this, search 2.3.0 file for “accordion”, oooops. Not there. Now try version 2.2.1 http://netdna.bootstrapcdn.com/twitter-bootstrap/2.2.1/css/bootstrap.no-icons.min.css YES, is there. I conclude they are idiots.
Like JS, they made a customized build of BS but clicked wrong buttons. There is more btw. Modals are also screwed. I nearly made a post here suggesting BS 2.3.0 is evil when used with JS. Then I got the idea to actually check their build. They have build on github but I cant be bothered to complain about such newbie mistakes. Idea is cool but when they mess up like this it is best not to use. http://www.jsdelivr.com/ might be better but check what is actually in the code! What ever is used should match what is in JS – basically default with icons.
Only thing, except for “icons”, I think JS remove from BS is the print media stuff. In 2.3.0 they also added some new “dont print” utility class in 2.3.0 so may be an idea to not exclude that code? Is useless as a “feature” because what ever they put in there it wont match all sites. Is ugly with code and ugly without code. But with code is a better starting point than zero right? Can also just use what HTML5boilerplate use but also has to be modified to each site. Well, a good start I presume and not really any reason to remove that little snippet? Any standard/CSS geek will say site is not complete if it cant be printed but most probably could not care less 😉 Can be a LOT of work to make any page/post print perfectly. Well, I would vote to not exclude “@media print ”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.