> about #2 there is absolutely no documentation on css and uibinder from > a designer point of view. > For example any half decent designer nowadays would use div and span > to create nice layout, while all gwt panels are still using nested > tables.
You can definitely just do most of your layout with divs and spans and just put the GWT widgets within those tags. UiBinder makes that much easier. Also, most of the newer layout widgets, the *Layout widgets, are now div and CSS based. For example: http://google-web-toolkit.googlecode.com/svn/javadoc/2.1/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/DockLayoutPanel.html I definitely agree that style is subjective. Personally, I don't like the desktop styles. I prefer a more web based style. There's lots of great examples of good looking web applications on http://www.smashingmagazine.com/ and http://net.tutsplus.com/ -- Arthur Kalmenson On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Uberto Barbini <[email protected]> wrote: > We're developing a "web 2.0" style app with gwt. > I cannot post url here (not yet) but the goal is something like > basecamp or twitter, nothing to do with desktop style widget (also > cool ones like vaadin). > > Our experience so far: > 1. UiBinder is much better than try to create our own widget by code. > 2. it's still much harder to get good looking results with GWT than > with plain html with Jquery. > 3. overall gwt is worth the pain 10 times if you add snappiness of > resulting application, debug, and code reuse. > > about #2 there is absolutely no documentation on css and uibinder from > a designer point of view. > For example any half decent designer nowadays would use div and span > to create nice layout, while all gwt panels are still using nested > tables. > > > cheers > Uberto > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Marcelo Magno <[email protected]> wrote: >> Worth to mention their debug mode where you can find design problems. >> >> Try to click on the "analyse layouts" button: >> http://demo.vaadin.com/sampler/?debug=true >> >> so +1 for Vaadin >> >> Marcelo Magno >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Steve Wart <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Vaadin looks good, and it makes sense to keep the client-side load >>> light, especially with touch devices becoming prevalent. >>> >>> But it doesn't seem great (so far) for touch UI work, and I think the >>> "everything in Java" mantra is sub-optimal. While Vaadin has hooks for >>> CSS and hand-crafted JavaScript, my ideal toolset would better support >>> the developers who can make these technologies sing. >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Kevin Qiu <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > +1 for Vaadin. >>> > Their widgets are very polished and professional. GXT and SmartGWT are >>> > fine >>> > but they're too desktop-looky, not Web2.0 looky... >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:03 PM, marius.andreiana >>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi Chi, >>> >> >>> >> On Aug 9, 10:23 pm, Chi H <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > * Pagination is the standard solution to the 'large number of >>> >> > entities' problem. However, there is a usability cost to pagination. >>> >> > It would be really nice to get rid of the pagination and just use a >>> >> > scrollbar. If you used the approach of SlickGrid (http:// >>> >> > wiki.github.com/mleibman/SlickGrid/), where you only rendered what >>> >> > was >>> >> > visible on the screen, you can render large numbers entities without >>> >> > the need for pagination. >>> >> >>> >> How will search engines index all the content in this case? >>> >> >>> >> The SlickGrid widget doesn't work at all if JS is not enabled. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> >> Groups >>> >> "Google Web Toolkit" group. >>> >> To post to this group, send email to >>> >> [email protected]. >>> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> >> [email protected]. >>> >> For more options, visit this group at >>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. >>> >> >>> > >>> > -- >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> > Groups >>> > "Google Web Toolkit" group. >>> > To post to this group, send email to >>> > [email protected]. >>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> > [email protected]. >>> > For more options, visit this group at >>> > http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Google Web Toolkit" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Google Web Toolkit" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Web Toolkit" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
