One of the things that keeps me from using a web platform on my projects is that I don't want to have to worry about aesthetics. With good ole Windows, I drop some controls and buttons into a designer and I know it is going to look pretty good and be obviously functional to all users. I don't have time to place individual lines and worry about the alignment of shading and curves. Projects like Bootstrap interest me because they offer a way for me to focus on function rather than looks, however I never seem them in action for something substantial. Say, a financial accounts manager.
Are there projects out there using these templates for such purposes?
@axelut maybe you can shed some light on why the examples don't cover a layout you would expect for, say a CRM app? Here's what I'm missing in your examples:
- Lists or Tables which can be filtered / sorted
- In-line editing of List (or Table) items
- In-line / pop-up / card-based detail drill-down of List (or Table) items
- CRUD methods
One tell-tale sign are the portfolio links from web agencies that link to dead sites. The client paid for the site, the theme, one year of hosting etc. After the year was up he saw no reason to continue.
& many more.
I've been very happy with http://materializecss.com/. Really simple to use with some very slick touches.
Legalese sucks hard (and layman-readable licenses are hard to write), but ambiguity is even worse.
Our business is to create good looking products that speed-up the development for web developers and not to go after people who use our products without a license. Probably there are 1000 people every day who just "View Source" of the page and get the product. We cannot and don't want to focus on those people :D
Licenses aren't just "ugh, we do software but we have to put up some stuff about licensing." Licenses are essential to any form of commercial software. If I base my front end on your bundle, which I paid for, I'm basing my business on your bundle. If I don't know what I've bought and what I can and can't do with your bundle, I don't know what I can do with my business. That's an absolute deal breaker. There's a reason why licenses look the way they do. This kind of stuff is incredibly hard to specify and the evaluation criteria isn't "I'm a programmer and I think I know what it means" it's "I'm a court of law reviewing how licenses have been interpreted historically for the past thousand years."
Did you pay a lawyer who specializes in software licenses to write that license? If you did, find a different lawyer. If you didn't, take down the license and your offer to let people use software you don't know how to license until you have found an actual lawyer and had them draft an actual license that is as professional as your product.
If you want a plain-vanilla license out of their law firm's files, expect it to cost a few thousand dollars to have your license prepared (mostly for the time it takes them to understand what you want). If you want an unusual or highly customized license, expect it to cost more like five to ten thousand dollars to have it prepared (because they will need to bill you for time spent writing that custom document). Licenses are hard. They are literally the contract between your business and your customers' businesses. They matter.
If you had a real license, I would have bought a pro license this morning. You don't, so all I can do is complain about it on hacker news and hope in some future life I find your site again and find a decent license on it.
How about just offering it for sale on envato under their licensing. Yes, you give up a bit of revenue because they take a cut but you don't have to pay a lawyer to draft a license for you, and you can still offer it on your own page under your own non-professionally-drafted license at the same time if you really want to do that too.
On another note, I personally see a license as one of many signs of product maturity. If there is a well established license in place, then that tells me the product is likely pretty stable and this along with other factors helps me determine if I should make the time investment to try and use that product. I think the issue here isn't whether your current users are having any problems with your license, but rather there are likely potential users who haven't even touched it because of the license. Having an explicit license is very helpful in the long run.
but honestly, tiering by license sucks. an alternative would be to make the core free open source software and, say, widget enterprise only.
That's pretty much what copyright does. However, copyright laws vary among countries. Also, like copyright a license is only as meaningful to the extent someone is willing to lawyer up and enforce it.
If I use it for a client, I've passed the client a risk because the license is non-standard. One reason for selecting a standard license is to just avoid the distraction of creating a non-standard one.
One of my peeves is that it's sometimes hard to create business dashboards with high information density, since a lot of the material frameworks love their padding out of the box.
Or if you want to aggravate users, override it so that each animation takes 10seconds. :)
I prefer previous design of Android (4.0-4.2) with slightly retrofuturistic aesthetics.
Can I use personal licence till the the time my app is not earning any revenue ?
This might be something I can use for a new SaaS I'm doing. Is there a "dashboard" type page?
And something with Tables/graphs etc?
It will be something like another dashboard that we created: http://demos.creative-tim.com/light-bootstrap-dashboard
Or will it be it's own standalone product?
i.e. can I start developing the Material Kit now, and add the dashboard on later?
You can start developing with Material Kit, then when we release the Dashboard you just change the CSS with the new one and also get the new Structure of the page (Sidebar + Main Area).
drop the blue on red for the charts
Also what License is suitable for an open source project?
If you want to give use feedback, want to contribute or have any issue, here is the Github Repo: https://github.com/timcreative/material-kit
Also, in SeaMonkey, the part with the sliders is like the sluggiest I've ever seen a website...
My only issue with the picture would be copyright concerns, but I don't know the copyright status of the photo used. Plus since Material Kit is free, I'm not sure if it would fall under Fair Use or not. IANAL.
Other things that could be offensive to various cultures:
- Red meat (offensive in India?)
- Beer (offensive in countries where alcohol is illegal)
One thing is to avoid being obviously offensive (nudity, violence, etc), the other thing is limiting yourself to the lowest common denominator of all things acceptable in all cultures. (However this could make sense for a highly localized/global product.)
Why not have a picture of a man? If they did that, then someone could also complain that women are not represented in the website. We're in a niche culture that is extremely sensitive towards that. Take for instance Facebook's "Friend request" icon, which was redesigned so that the woman was on front, and not on the back, precisely because someone took offense from that:
...and the places that isn't can suck it frankly.
You see this particularly with religions who think that belief in something unprovable should give them special rights.
You guys do great work, thanks!