5

Although I have seen a few Bootstrap sites, I have only just started to look into it seriously and I was quite shocked by what I saw in the HTML - loads of nested divs with multiple classes attached to each.

In the old days before CSS, people used to decorate their HTML with fonts, colours, etc., and this was considered a "bad thing". CSS enabled the HTML to be very clean and free of styling information. This is "separation of concerns" which is considered to be a "good thing".

Although the styling in bootstrap has a level of indirection (i.e. it references class names rather than directly specifying colours etc.) it is basically putting the styling information back into the HTML instead of using CSS as it was intended.

Don't get me wrong, I have written enough CSS to know how difficult it is to maintain, so I can understand how bootstrap came about. My question is really whether bootstrap is seen as a hack for people who want to knock up a site quickly and don't care about separation of concerns, or whether it's actually considered a good practice to keep the style information close to the HTML (which you could argue is a kind of encapsulation) rather than lumping it all together into a separate file (i.e. that CSS wasn't really the right solution).

  • 3
    I agree that bootstrap violates SoC, especially with classes like btn-link or mt-n. But what goal does separation of concern help to reach for you? If it is maintainability then, well: bootstrap achieves much better maintainability by other means. Thats totally fine for me. After all, a logically clean codebase that is a nightmare to maintain doesn't help anyone. A codebase that can be quickly adapted to customer needs, many times, without going to shit, helps quite a lot. – marstato Nov 5 '19 at 11:11
  • I understand that bootstrap can add to maintainability in some ways, but it seems to throw so much of the baby out with the bathwater. For instance, say I have an app with 20 screens each containing several tables with lists of items on, and I want all those tables formatted the same. With CSS I can just apply a class to those 20 pages and have all that done for me; with bootstrap, if I don't want the defaults, I have to copy-paste the formatting onto every cell in every row of every table on every page. – Andy Nov 6 '19 at 13:44
  • 1
    not really. First, you can still add a class to the 20 <table> tags and apply custom styling to the cells and rows as you like. Secondly, bootstrap 3 and 4 are written in CSS preprocessor languages (LESS/SASS). If you buy into that you can define a CSS-class to be applied to your <table> tags that applies bootstrap-builtins to rows, cells and other things as necessary without any repetition. – marstato Nov 6 '19 at 15:08
  • Thanks I'll investigate the SASS thing. I knew bootstrap used it but didn't look into it properly yet – Andy Nov 7 '19 at 16:27
  • @marstato Don't forget about javascript interactions. HTML defines the structure, and a highly functional page might depend on that structure. You may want to duplicate or to change the styles of the page, and continue to use the same javascript to provide behavior. In these scenarios, it is much easier to simply swap out the CSS. Regarding maintenance, I agree with others' assertions that SASS/SCSS is the best tool for the job. – Lopsided May 22 at 22:13
5

My question is really whether bootstrap is seen as a hack for people who want to knock up a site quickly and don't care about separation of concerns

A lot of Bootstrap utility classes are useful hacks to get a site up and running quickly yes, but if we ignore the utility classes, most of Bootstrap's components are actually well designed reusable components that can mesh well with semantic markups and they're fine semantically speaking (although they do force you to use their naming, and standardization isn't necessarily a bad thing).

My principle when marrying Bootstrap and Semantic markup is that you don't want to drink too much of either side's Kool-Aid. They're both fine techniques to help solve problems and minimise the cost of maintenance, but they both also can create their own set of problems if you inconsiderately apply the good basic principles without fully understanding when or why the techniques are done certain way.

Generally, you should be writing most of your major site components with plain old semantic markups and define useful blocks of functionality in your CSS; use Bootstrap for its reusable, composable components here and there are ok (i.e. don't build the entire house with Bootstrap, but using Bootstrap-branded windows and furnitures are perfectly fine). The Bootstrap components are great because it gives you a common language to talk about the common components of a site in higher level than raw HTML/CSS, and it allows you to prototype really quickly.

It's really great to have decent looking, well tested buttons, forms, and basic grid system without having to write huge amount of code yourself. But you also don't want restrict yourself to Bootstrap, as you may find that forcing Bootstrap beyond the basics often lead to worst maintenance nightmare than straight styling.

However, Bootstrap utility classes should be used sparingly, reserved for minor tweaks where practicality beats purity, rather than building your primary layout definition with it. If your tags have class attributes that are mostly utility classes, you're doing it wrong, IMHO.

Most Bootstrap utility classes are essentially just wrapper classes for one liner CSS. And having to add them everywhere it's used can make your HTML code look very unreadable and bloated, with all the problems of inline style attributes. They certainly don't make the code more maintainable.

| improve this answer | |
  • That sounds like a very sensible idea, but it doesn't seem to me that that's the way it's normally used. It also seems a shame that you should have to reverse-engineer the styles they've used so you can apply them yourself in a more CSS-y way. I can't get away from the nagging doubt that there should be some way of getting the benefits of bootstrap without having to throw away so many of the benefits of CSS – Andy Nov 6 '19 at 14:01
3

Depends. Bootstrap can be used both ways. Many bootstrap classes are semantic, so does not break separation of concerns. E.g.

<div class="alert alert-danger">Beware of the leopard</div>

This is perfectly in line with how CSS is supposed to be used.

But bootstrap also have classes which are more directly coupled to presentation, eg. btn-dark, btn-xl which define presentation properties rather that semantic properties. That is not exactly in the spirit of CSS - but it is still much more maintainable than having e.g. font-size specified directly in the HTML.

| improve this answer | |
  • Although I'm new to bootstrap, it looks to me that in the real world, the semantic classes are the exception rather than the rule. Specifically, I'd guess that the main reason many people pick bootstrap is because it's an easy way to get a responsive design, and a big part of that is facilitated by the grid model which requires me to specify the relative width of each component in the HTML markup – Andy Nov 6 '19 at 13:50
2

I think a de facto truth that complete separation of style from content via HTML and CSS is not possible.

Take a look at http://www.csszengarden.com/

At first glance it looks like the perfect demonstration of separation of content and style. But if you take a close look at some of the more advanced designs they are putting content in the css via background images and the like.

On a modern single page site you bring javascript frameworks into the picture, which will add and remove style and content dynamically.

Rather than achieve the goal of a simple layout language which left the display to the browser, HTML has become a vehicle for displaying pixel perfect designs where sites only function at all on advanced browsers.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Not all images are content. AFAICS, all the images added by Zen Garden CSS are presentational. My rule of thumb whether an image is or isn't content is whether the image needs an alt text for screenreaders. If an image is important to understanding the content and you can write an alt text for it, then it's likely content. If an image can be removed from the page without sacrificing information, then it's just presentational. – Lie Ryan Nov 6 '19 at 3:37
  • im talking about images with text in – Ewan Nov 6 '19 at 7:24
  • not all texts are content either, nor are images that contains texts are necessarily content. Texts can be presentational too. – Lie Ryan Nov 6 '19 at 9:16
  • for instance : csszengarden.com/220 the text "Select a Design:" is hidden and replaced by an image which says "Washes and Styles" – Ewan Nov 6 '19 at 9:58
  • that text/image is evidently presentational text. That the text can be replaced without reducing understandability of the content is evidence that the text isn't really part of the content. – Lie Ryan Nov 6 '19 at 10:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.