I know the new Design library it’s worked one.
I was thinking if it wouldn’t be a good idea to have some sort of light css framework (basically “global classes”) that would apply to each imported design, where possible. (for paddings, margins, font sizes, etc)
They would all use the same class naming, just have variations for their values specific to the design.
I know the new Design library it’s worked one.
Great idea indeed.
If I’m not mistaken, this will be possible with the new design library.
I think you will be able to upload or share anything - stylesheets as well.
Agree, simply do your own with the new libraries.
Curious to see new library!
Just to be more clear, my point is about having a unified naming convention for all classes used (utility classes) in the layouts provided by cwicly. (something like how Tailwind UI templates are made)
Thanks for elaborating @alex.
I find this a really interesting concept.
Some standardized framework which could be also used to build items for the design library would be quite exciting.
I also do remember Louis talking about the idea of implementing the option to only load global classes inside the stylesheets which are used in the project, similar to tailwind’s jit.
Providing an own framework could open an entire new door of possibilities.
It provides a lot of possibilities, from interchangeability between all cwicly designs, or even between those submitted by the community (that are build using the framework).
Plus just the fact, that for example you start with s design that you like, but you want to extend it. By having the framework in place, you have all the ingredients to extend it easily maintaining consistency & style. (or vice versa, you start with a fresh design using the framework and after extend it with pre-made components that are using the same classes)
Well summarized @alex.
The Design Library will solve and improve so many aspects.
You actually came up with an idea / potential approach and addressed something I was trying to solve or find an optimal solution for it in the past.
Somehow your suggestion didn’t cross my mind, so thanks again.
I think this is something which should be talked about and I would love to hear more opinions on that.
Hi @alex and everyone,
Thanks for bringing this one up.
We have spent quite some time with the team weighing the pros and cons for introducing a Cwicly framework that would be used in the Cwicly Design library (this is why the Styler block was introduced).
The new design library allows you to upload designs with the global classes and global styles that are used for that specific item, letting the user choose whether he wants to import them as global classes or Styler blocks, so I can let you imagine the liberty that that will bring also. It also lets you save your global classes (folders introduced), stylesheets and external classes collections, so really quite complete.
Ultimately, we couldn’t find a meeting point where we felt confident a framework was something that people would want to use versus ones that are already available out there.
Also, this would ask the user to spend time figuring things out with the Cwicly framework etc… and some users just don’t want to see the word framework…
Tailwind is definitely something we have our eye on with the automatic removal of unused CSS, and might be something that more users would appreciate using?
I’d love to have more of your thoughts on this
Thanks for sharing some info here @Louis.
I think the main point here is to have a framework available which is natively integrated and in best case to have some additional options available, for instance the one you mentioned.
Not sure how far this could be extended or even replace other 3rd party WP framework solutions.
So it actually doesn’t matter if it’s an own solution or not.
To be honest, I can see more benefits relying on an existing, powerful and popular one.
In case there is a framework available inside Cwicly, it could be seen as best practice using this one when creating Design Library items if a framework would’ve been used anyway.
I agree. Another framework might not be the overall best solution, especially when people using other tools - and they do.
A framework should never replace the native/intended way of building in my opinion, it should always be seen as an additional option.
While I enjoy using frameworks whenever it makes sense for me on custom projects, I have my issues using it inside builders.
Beside the lack of configuration, it’s a mess using frameworks without direct access to HTML. But that’s only my humble opinion/experience and also a topic for itself.
@Louis , admins of Winden are interested in collab :
Didn’t they claim that Cwicly is useless because everything you need is their great Gutenberg plugin?
I looked up their post and I want to add that it might be rather related to a specific case than a general statement. Just for clarification.
Still, there is room for interpretation.
Nothing against them, I even defended this particular product in the past against general misinformation.
I wouldn’t know about that… Don’t know why they would say such thing, they mostly branch on other builders so it sounds hard to believe.