Hi Dan, a while ago I asked if I could try the Beta version of ELEMENTS. Anyway, I was sick and away and lost track of the conversation. How do I find out if I can use it and if yes, where can I access it?
Thank you
Cheers
Hucky
1 Like
Don’t worry, you’re on the list, expect am email shortly 
Hi Dan,
I am afraid I have to decline your kind offer as I just realized that I cannot use Elements while using BigSur……
Let’s see, whenever I will get a new computer and operating system, I might come back to Elements. Until then,
I will try my best with Cassic.
Cheers
Hucky
No problem, we’ll be here and ready whenever you are 
Same here. But I’ll get a new Mac soon for this product (++:).
Seems quite worth it; I’ve been awaiting Elements.
–shawn
Morning Dan, same question from me please. Any ETA on gaining access to the beta? Its not fair to tease those of us on the list with the Elements feature set! 
Sorry. we’re rolling it out slowly so we can manage the feedback. I’ll try to include you in the next round
1 Like
Hi @binarydog
Just wanted to say that the Elements API is still being rolled out, but as a dev, I’m on top of it and hopefully it will be a relatively smooth transition to develop custom components (I call them elements) for the community.
Bill
Stack-Its
3 Likes
I still have a hard time calling them ‘components’ and usually just end up calling them ‘elements’ anyway, and in my head ‘globals’ are ‘site components’ as they are only relevant within a single site/project.
Yes, I’m actually finding I use the two terms interchangeably.
I’m not even sure what I’d prefer going forward. One thing I do think, having the name ‘Section’ as both a single empty component and a pre-built complex component is a little confusing.
1 Like
Yes! With all due respect, this is a terrible idea. Just using container or even just a generic “div” would be best.
In regards to Components, Tailwind calls them Components, so for the sake of the Tailwind CSS brand, leaving that works for me.
+1000 to this. Personally, I’d dump the Section component (and the confusion it causes) and focus on the Container component, leaving the concept of Sections to represent pre-built ‘templates’ the represent common page ‘sections’ found in many sites today.
Also, the core elements/components really need a BIG refactor as I’m finding a lot of strange decisions in their design/implementation. For instance, why can’t I simply add padding or margins to any core element? Why are those properties reserved for certain core components? Why can’t I apply a background (none, colour, gradient, etc) or a border (size, colour, corner radius, etc) to all core elements? By not having a core set of consistent properties that every element (or type of element) supports (see this post) you have left everything up to the element/component creators to implement, which will only create discrepancies in the overall UI/UX, and functionality that will only lead to user confusion.
Anyway, I’m hoping to spend some time this weekend putting together a list of notes and suggestions for all of the core elements/components in an effort to make the core Elements user experience much more cohesive.
In terms of brand, I’d much rather have the Elements brand foremost in users’ minds when using the app, rather than the Tailwind brand.
I think if Realmac really wants to create something bold and new they need to own it, and make it their own (where it makes sense to, no need to reinvent the wheel). Seeing as the app is called Elements and there is no such thing within the app called ‘an element’ this seems like a massive missed opportunity.
I think the word ‘components’ is a very powerful word/concept in the way we build modern web experiences today. Not using it would be a mistake, but I’m not convinced that they are the core of the app. For me the core of the app is an extensible collection of elements that I can employ like building blocks to create more complex components which can then be integrated, managed, and updated within my site(s).
Elements are the building blocks.
Components are the way we compose, create, and manage those building blocks within each site we create.
Both are powerful ideas, but shouldn’t be used interchangeably as that only creates confusion.
1 Like
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, and not to belabor this more, but EXACTLY what are you proposing? An example would help me understand the HOW of what you’re suggesting rather than the reason. Actually, your REASON I happen to agree with in concept.
Sorry @Flash, but I’m 100% not sure I’m following, but here’s what I’m proposing…
- The app is called Elements (done).
- Components are renamed to ‘elements’ as these are the core and defining features of the product, which also happens to be called ‘Elements’. Yes, this will create some ‘stack-ish’ naming confusion, but with a clear delineation between ‘Elements’ (the app) and ‘elements’ (the building blocks) this could be minimized.
- Globals are renamed to ‘components’ which IMHO better describes what these are, and how they are used. It also provides a nice hook back other modern web design/development software where the term has become a common and familiar concept.
By naming things in this manner Realmac would accomplish 2 things:
- Reinforce the defining features of the product both in the name, and the features themselves. Elements.
- Use a familiar naming convention for a common concept that is not only familiar in the developer world, but also found in other WYSIWYG web design tools. Components.
By doing this they can further differentiate their product while reducing friction as new users will feel more comfortable finding familiar conventions being used.
I certainly understand the concept of having a page broken into sections.
It’s just being able to add a complete section or create a new empty section is a little confusing when discussing things.
The Section component does seem more like a container or wrapper so I wouldn’t be averse to making Containers the empty component.
Early on I suggested Modules for drop in ‘Sections’ (banners, CTA, footers etc) as I felt it more closely resembled what they were. I’d be happy to have empty Sections - suggesting to users they use them to differentiate page regions - and Modules (or Component/Block) of completed ‘Elements’ which can be dropped in and essentially complete.
I appreciate this is all semantics but it’s attracted a lot of discussion which suggests it would be good to nail it down before a wider release.
It’s funny you said this. It is exactly for this reason I do not like the name sections. This is all because of the semantic web. Semantic elements are critical for accessibility and a html section being used correctly is critical. This naming convention creates too much confusion. It’s hard to even comment on right now and it make sense.
1 Like
Hi Dan.
looking forward to put me on the beta-program.
TIA $regs Ray
1 Like
fyi- I now have a machine with an M3 running macOS Sonoma. I’m ready.
I’ve been using Elements quite intensively for a few weeks now, and it just keeps getting better with each new beta version that’s released. It’s incredible how they’ve managed to completely reinvent a software package. At first, it may take a bit of getting used to, but you quickly realize how well thought out it is. Everything is very intuitive. A big plus is the weekly Dev Diaries videos. They give you a quick insight into everything Elements has to offer. I’m really looking forward to what’s yet to come… Huge compliments to Dan and the team.
3 Likes