I would make it clear in the landing page that the components are for demonstration purposes by adding a title like "For example" before them.
The above the fold looks a bit packed right now. I would leave the login box out until user presses top right as it's for retentive users only.
I don't think the demo should overpower the landing page.
And then it goes straight into themes. If I'm a Rails developer I'm not looking at theming, I'm looking for a conventional UI system that fits into Rails - stimulus, Hotwire, all that.
As far as I know, this site so far is just a bunch of specialised scaffolds for certain use-cases, but Rails itself has been capable of that the entire time.
You can either take the pages and tweak them for your own use case, or just use the UI components and skip the theme entirely. If you get a chance, try the free Ruby gem to see what I mean.
The login box is maybe confusing or maybe I'm misunderstanding you, it's actually UI for a login box, not actually where you login. I agree this area could be tightened up.
Any chance of some themes that bring in a little dimension? Doesn't have to be early 2010s Bootstrap or anything but some subtle, crisp drop shadows and gentle gradients would be welcome.
Additionally, is unused Tailwind CSS shaken out or does it all come along for the ride?
And yes, unused Tailwind CSS is automatically extracted when it's built. For Rails, we use the tailwindcss-rails gem as a dependency for Rails UI, which JustWorks™.
- table background moves left when table is scrolled horizontally
- actions in table and dropdown do nothing on tap
- text on buttons is selectable (really?)
otherwise looks cool though
My guess is there's a lot of shops that don't want to mess with prompting AI to get to something clean and usable, and would rather just save money and pay the fee.
Unless there’s a very specific business case that requires a custom UI it’s not worth the hassle. I want to be delivering value for the business and for users, not maintaining a UI library.
One place I worked at had built an entire responsive CSS framework, which was hard to use and took a lot of maintenance. I threw it all out for Bootstrap (as was the style at the time). Some of the senior devs were upset I’d killed their baby, but everyone else was able to move so much faster.
I'd love to have a designer that started with a style guide and then actually stuck with it. Writing CSS isn't hard, and sticking with a known set of rules makes it even easier. But then this one component needs a slightly different font size that doesn't match up to any of the established typography rules, and this other spot needs unique padding, and and and I end up having to waste so much time looking for these little surprises.
"Solo" plan is $299/year (1 seat), "Team" plan is $799/year (30 seats), larger plans are "inquire now".
I'm not saying the product is unserious; just that developers are generally unserious about pricing.
A more natural unit for pricing would be per domain, application, environment, or similar.
That said, I'm aware several UI frameworks have moved toward seat-based licensing recently, so it must be working for them in some sense.
Potential value bounds the price upper end, but alternatives set what the customer will actually pay. There are much more comprehensive tools of similar nature that are offered for free.
The (somewhat) unique value proposition it offers is in how it integrates into Rails, saving an hour of a developer's time — or a couple of minutes of an LLM's time, if the slot machine happens to work in your favour on that particular spin — required to manually do it themselves. That's worth something, but if you go too high it soon becomes more cost effective to just pay someone to put in that hour.
i havent used it since 2006 opting for php and django
i might give it another shot, any reason you like this more than django or other frameworks
Under the hood, I like the Rails conventions and Ruby's beauty.
Personally, I don't see the point in ever touching rails since bunjs gives me everything I need while being faster and typescript compatible.
Ruby does look pretty, but that's it.
Is there any benefit that would justify giving it a try if you already use typescript?
when will developers learn UI actually matters
bootstrap was a mistake, and lowered the bar for everyone