This study compares two websites with similar design: the commercial Spotlight template from developers of Tailwind vs the same site with semantic CSS.

  • Rimu@piefed.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    I don’t know what “semantic css” is, to me that’s just normal css. I felt the original title could be confusing for people.

    • FlumPHP@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      But you didn’t use the word normal / plain / vanilla. You used proper, which is a loaded word.

        • Lemminary@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          That is not true. You do need to know CSS to make proper use of Tailwind for anything beyond changing colors and padding. That’s the reason why the Intellisense VS Code extension gives the underlying CSS on hover. I’d love to see a newbie try content layout knowing nothing but Tailwind.

        • shnizmuffin@lemmy.inbutts.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          You could just as easily use the article’s title and save your opinions for the post body or the comments, but you didn’t.

          Oh no, implicit bias. Twice!

        • Kayn@dormi.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Please just use the original title. Semantic CSS is an actual thing and it takes 2 seconds to google what it is.

        • intensely_human
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          That guy just pulled the same “misinterpret what you said, pretend it was your fuckup instead of my own overeager interpretation problem” to me here: https://lemm.ee/comment/10695316

          Your use of the word “proper” was … proper as a matter of fact. This guy’s just an idiot who enjoys adding a confounding interpretation with his own distorting commentary.