(In my experience, it's never been "this doesn't look as good as the latest version of Discord", or whatever.)
Bootstrap ships components. AFAIK you need another library if you want that in Tailwind.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11287413
(The underlying webpage is no longer around. But the HN discussion is.)
I haven't used it in ages, but it used to be that Bootstrap also shipped drop-in CSS that would give you decent-looking styles on all the common elements, so a single minified style sheet would give you that classic "2010s startup" look.
That abstraction is what brings the "sameness" factor in play, though.
pair that with the field of ui/ux thinking landing pages that say nothing at all and you get a million webpages that look the same. every sass does this. in fact, every saas had a slop feeling to it because of this before AI took off. before chat friggen jippity and now claude and gemini were ubiquitous, i was regularly rolling my eyes at every. single. saas. website.
all the examples in OP don't look like a tailwind specific thing to me at all. they look like a broader boring internet-webdev equivalent to live laugh love pinterest home interior designs that predates the AI slopfest. this is the web styling VC's have been demanding from the startups they've invested in for many years now.
as far as tailwind goes, it's more like a utility set of classes but i see no reason why you can't get creative with it. feel like it's catching strays here simply because everyone's vibe coding and it's a common path for trained models to choose but that really says not a lot about tailwind and a whole lot about how people are choosing to use tailwind. it's not like tailwinds providing a breadth of components or is locking in certain stylistic elements. it's just that everyone's making the same choices because everyone's slopping their front ends.
But yeh, they aren't the thing we're talking about here.
yes, and who wants creativity and risk when everything can look like the interior of a McDonalds. I'd much rather look at someone's terrible and scuffed attempt at designing their own page, because it at least signals that there is a human who isn't afraid to try something out rather than the Instagram filter version of a webpage.
If you're building the application equivalent of JP Graziano or La Chaparrita Taqueria, make it human, scuffed up even. I'd like JP Graziano less if it looked like a Cheesecake Factory. Right there with you. But if you're building a tool, for developers, one that will mostly be used to conduct some kind of business? Boring competence wins hands down. Users and customers are scouting for competence. Most of the time, their antennae are not in fact up for individual artistic expression.
The mechanic is a separate argument - the article is talking about uniqueness of design and creativity, not cleanliness / orderliness. These sort of Tailwind designs are exceptionally clean and orderly, they're just predictable and not unique. To apply the article to your analogy, I wouldn't particularly care if my mechanic had the same coveralls that most mechanics wear as opposed to some unique design of coveralls.
I know plenty of DJ's that are surprisingly tech averse, whatever art is on their pages, is more of a testament to who they hired as a designer than their own artistic acumen
The best way to figure out how to prompt an LLM is to develop design skills so you know what to tell it.
I’ve been in the industry a long time. Even before LLMs, I think web design would get stuck in cycles. So I just want it to spit out something that looks novel and interesting, which pushes me to coach it even better.
Same as you have to be explicit about instructions to humans.
Even humans use their default assumptions w/o clear directions
It's just a weird way to write CSS right in the classes. We have a tool for that, it's called "writing CSS", and it actually has classes that allow sharing style choices across various components (which somehow is marketed as feature of TW)
In other words, I don't see how Tailwind is just "I want to write my CSS in obscure way in the wrong place".
A “perfect” website has things cleanly separated out between style, logic, and DOM, but that does cause cases where you might have to edit three files every time you change a single widget of your website. Neglecting to do that can leave dead or incorrect code just because the issues do not inherently present themselves to you.
Yes, a perfectly principled programmer would do it right… but have you worked with other people before? They’re not necessarily very reliable.
Really the decision comes down to whether it's better to separate based on style/logic/dom or on the business domain, and I think at least for web apps, separation by domain wins out in most cases.
1. Locality of behavior - the classes are the description of the style once you know tailwind, and they live where the thing they're styling is. I can look at a template and know pretty well how it is going to look without having to go lookup a sites personal bespoke CSS and match what's written there to the markup.
2. It's the same classes as you move from project to project. I have tons of small one-off apps I maintain, all using tailwind and I don't have to figure out the custom CSS classes and their meanings. It is a knowledge set that reduces friction between projects and I really need things that reduce cognitive load like that.
3. No dead CSS. There are tools to help with this in regular CSS but I just don't have to think about it with tailwind and that's nice. I work on my templates and the CSS is updated and minifed on the fly without extra steps (or unnecessary CSS).
4. Easy to build a personal component library that doesn't also require relevant CSS to be bundles with it. For me this one is pretty great. Thanks to template engines (for me it's Django's, but Jinja or others are grand too) I have a simple place to pull components (really just template partials) and widgets I've made and they just work because the underlying classes are the same. There are some exceptions around color schemes and the like but now all my little components take a colour scheme arg and voila, no proballo.
I think the key here is that a description of the visual is embedded in the markup. That lets the actual mark-up delivered to the front-end describe pretty much the whole kit. With server-side rendering ( I use HTMX ) I can even write unittests that responses contain expected markup, including CSS classes (I built a few helper assertions that all of my test suites use) which gives me some interesting checks.
I really ultimately don't think there is one correct way to do things. The things I value may be utterly irrelevant to another developer.
What I find with any site is that without a good foundation you're bound to repeat same styles over and over, and with one you don't get any point with Tailwind.
https://berrus.app/ (game) https://josepvidal.dev/ (my site) https://fescims.com/ (mountaineering community)
Even my mobile app for the mountaineering community is tailwind (Yes, there is Tailwind for ReactNative): https://apps.apple.com/us/app/cims-mountain-challenges/id674...
My point being, quick AI slop landing pages and products will share the same vibes, but at the end Tailwind is just a collection of css classnames, allowing you to build and create as much as cool and unique pages as with plain css if you put the effort.
the problem is not tailwind, the model output just reflects the training material that most likely overindexed on tailwind templates with lots of fonts and text sizes and outlines, I'm sure future training runs will be better
The authors blog design is perfectly functional, and I'm not suggesting that it needs any changes, but it also isn't a particularly impressive piece of web design.
People used to say this a lot about Bootstrap.
Someone set up a bootstrap or not? guessing game and the real surprise was that you not only failed to spot some bootstrap sites you also guessed a lot of non-bootstrap sites were bootstrap because they all used the same modern UX paradigms.
I think what they're actually experiencing is that they can instantly tell a default Tailwind site with reused components, which is not much of a claim at all.
If Tailwind didn't exist people would just be writing the same article about {{ insert most common css tool here }}
Most people create generic similar looking websites, and most people that making a new website today use Tailwind. Correlation is not causation, and linking the two in any meaningful way is just a pointless discussion.
Everything else is just people using a default configuration instead of building their own.
Deeply flawed unfortunately.
For example - and I know it may not map cleanly back to software, but it’s worth thinking about - some of the best food is served in restaurants with plastic chairs and tables where the decor is an afterthought.
Tailwind has a unique benefit in that you can change the CSS of the page and just that page. There is no chance that you make a change that breaks the rest of the site because you wrote a rule wrong. In some environments/applications this is a big deal.
But honestly that's the only credit i'll give it. The class names are still confusing to me and you do get more flexibility with CSS. And i'd rather be writing classless css and targeting custom HTML elements anyway.
Imo UI is bifurcated. Its either not impressive(most websites) or there was immense effort put into it(like posthogs site).
So for a small project where im focusing on shipping speed and feature building, yeah tailwin is being used because I dont want to do motion design rn
The big gradient fonts came from Apple Keynote, i thought. At least that's where i first saw templates like that.
Just shipping a tailwind template is lazy and trite. But LLMs are made to optimize for the lazy and trite. They can only choose the lowest-common denominator.
LLMs don’t really know how to give designs personality. Most of the time I see attempts to improve the situation that basically just boil down to vibe-coded slop that’s prettier. I’m sure better designs exist, but the ones that do exist are almost certainly about the person who drove the LLM, not the LLM itself.
I think it's slop to many of us, but to a general user, they just aren't seeing it as slop.
There definitely is a distinct AI "design" look, I just don't really see it here.
the entire industry has always been converging toward "cookie-cutter" ui, and tailwind is just this cycle's flavor and now on steroids with AI. Honestly for 90% of the stuff out there that's literally fine and probably better. There was a time when being extra creative in FE work was rewarded. If your product is very brand dependent then yeah maybe try to find your "voice" but for the vast majority of them, esp dev focused, they just need to work on other things and not try to re-invent solutions to solved problems.
i know we all like to pretend our meticulously engineered button and drop shadow animations are actually moving a needle, but you're optimizing the last few percent at that point. most saas FE devs should be solving other problems like the UX and performance and not worry about more creative landing pages.
