React Desktop – React UI Components for OS X El Capitan and Windows 10

The widgets aren't native, which would be about a thousand times cooler. They are fakes made out of CSS.

Please forgive the simple question, but...<p>Why does this exist? Is creating desktop programs out of HTML code really a good idea?

Man it&#x27;s great to see effort being put into a platform-sensitive React component set. We&#x27;ve been working on React components for N1, and it&#x27;d be cool to swap them out for an open source set one day. The thing is, I&#x27;m not sure 100% native appearance is the way to go. I think Spotify nailed a cross-platform desktop experience using a UI that is distinctly non-native.<p>For folks just learning about Electron &#x2F; web-based desktop UI — we gave a talk about UI considerations at the Bay Area ElectronJS meetup last month: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=JIRXVGVPzn8" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=JIRXVGVPzn8</a>

The components look nice but they&#x27;re not really native like I had initially thought. Are these necessarily better or different than existing styles that reproduce these components?<p>Anyway, I would love to see these come in native form like reactive-native.

On OS X, how will these components interact with the accessibility features?

It&#x27;s cute and I can see the appeal but I think that even if you are making a &quot;desktop app&quot; that has its own executable, you are better off just using nice HTML. It will be cross-platform, it will probably look nicer (imo, the desktop-style looks somewhat dated). And most importantly, it won&#x27;t confuse users when it doesn&#x27;t behave as expected. Getting hotkey behavior etc right is hard, if not impossible -- some things change with international settings and some key combinations are unavailable to the browser anyway.

We&#x27;ve seen these countless times before. Trying to recreate native UI in web technologies is a lost cause in my book.<p>I think what you&#x27;ve got here for an OS X implementation is pretty good, but I can still tell that it isn&#x27;t really native, and if an OS update changes anything in regard to the standard UI components forget about it.<p>Why not design and develop your own UI? That way you can control how it is supposed to work given the drawbacks and advantages of web technologies and not have to ask the user for forgiveness of minor quirks in your reimplementation.

As long as we&#x27;re just talking about skins and not true native desktop behavior, I&#x27;d like to see someone port such nice styles to FLTK [0] boxes. FLTK moves you back to C++ bindings relative to an Electron-based solution, but you&#x27;d get the same &quot;looks native but not really&quot; and layout portability tradeoffs in a tiny, undeniably mature library.<p>[0] - <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fltk.org&#x2F;index.php" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fltk.org&#x2F;index.php</a>

I could see this being used in a desktop app using Chrome Embedded Framework or some embedded browser framework. Even if you are using HTML to generate views for your Desktop app, it could be very useful to use native-looking widgets to blend in.

this looks like a continuation of the work cappuccino was&#x2F;is doing.<p>sometimes you just want an app to look decent by default not unique.