Vue.js

Vue.js is a JavaScript framework for building user interfaces. It lets you split a screen into components, manage their state and connect the view to data. You can use it for a single module on an existing website or for an entire application.

This flexibility matters for the business. You don’t have to rebuild the whole system straight away to modernise an admin panel, basket or product configurator. At the same time, a larger product can get a consistent architecture, tests and a shared set of components.

At Okinet we decide how to use Vue based on the product, the back end and the team’s skills. The framework should speed up the delivery of new features, not be a goal in itself.

Vue works well for B2B panels, self-service applications, e-commerce, internal systems and websites with complex forms. Its clear component model helps the team keep elements behaving consistently and extend screens without copying logic.

It can also be introduced into a running project gradually. First it takes over one independent part, and other modules can be migrated later. This reduces risk in systems that can’t be stopped for a full rebuild.

For a simple informational website, Vue may be unnecessary. If there are only a few interactions, well-written HTML and a small script will cost less to maintain. We base the decision on the number of states, the product roadmap and SEO requirements.

A component combines the structure, behaviour and appearance of a repeated element. Buttons, fields, tables, messages and whole sections can draw on a single set of rules. An accessibility or validation fix then doesn’t have to be made separately on every screen.

A design system makes sense when it reflects the product’s real patterns. We start by reviewing the interface and tokens such as colour, spacing and typography. We don’t create a large library if the team won’t use it.

Well-documented component properties let designers and developers speak the same language. We also document error, loading, empty and restricted-access states, because these often determine the quality of the product.

Vue doesn’t dictate the back-end technology. It can work with PHP, Symfony, WordPress, Node.js or any other system that provides an API. This means the front end can be developed independently, as long as both sides have agreed a data contract.

Local state is enough for a simple component. A shared store is worth introducing when many screens use the same information or a process spans several steps. Too much global state makes changes harder to track, so we don’t move everything into it.

In forms we separate helpful hints in the browser from the final validation on the server. We handle lost connections, duplicates, expired sessions and partial responses, so users know whether their action has been saved.

In an SPA (single-page application) most of the interface is built in the browser. This gives smooth transitions, but the first view requires JavaScript to be downloaded and run. SSR (server-side rendering) generates HTML on the server for each request, while SSG (static site generation) prepares pages in advance. Nuxt helps build Vue applications using these models.

For a catalogue, a sales website or content meant to attract organic traffic, we usually want quickly available HTML, stable URLs, metadata and correct status codes. A panel available after logging in can work as an SPA, because it doesn’t need to be indexed.

SSR and SSG are not a free SEO switch. They bring extra requirements for hosting, caching, hydration and code that runs in different environments. We choose the model for each part of the system rather than forcing one rendering approach on every screen.

Vue officially supports TypeScript. Typing component properties, events and API responses makes refactoring easier and reveals errors before the application even runs. In a large project it also reduces hidden assumptions between teams.

Unit tests protect component logic, integration tests check how components work together, and end-to-end tests walk through the most important user journey. We match the level of testing to the risk. A payment process needs different protection from a decorative animation.

Automated checks of formatting, types and tests in CI give the team quick feedback before code is merged. Code review can then focus more on how the product behaves than on mistakes a tool can catch.

Performance depends on bundle size, the number of components, how data is fetched and the cost of rendering. We split code by route, defer elements that aren’t visible at first, and check whether an external library is worth the extra kilobytes.

Large tables or lists may need pagination or virtualisation. Caching helps with data that rarely changes, but it needs refresh rules. We optimise after measuring, because the problem isn’t always Vue: sometimes it is an image, the API or an analytics script.

Components must keep proper HTML semantics, keyboard support, focus handling and clear labels. A dynamic change of view should also be announced to people using a screen reader. We check accessibility both automatically and manually.

Migrating from Vue 2 to Vue 3 can involve the framework, router, state management, component library and build process. First we map the dependencies and check which elements have no supported version. This lets us estimate the work beyond the application code itself.

You don’t always have to migrate everything at once. We can separate modules, add tests around key processes and upgrade one area after another. If the old system has many hidden dependencies, a short technical phase reduces the risk of an inaccurate estimate.

Modernisation is a chance to remove dead code and simplify state, but we don’t slip in product changes without control. We plan technical compatibility and new features separately, which makes it easier to find the cause of any regression.

Vue is easy to get started with and can be adopted gradually. React offers a broad ecosystem and lots of freedom in choosing tools. Angular provides a more complete, opinionated set of solutions, which can help large teams working to a shared standard.

No framework wins for every project. We look at available skills, existing code, the rendering model needed, industry libraries and how the product will be maintained. If your current stack is supported and well known to the team, the cost of switching technology is usually greater than the difference between the frameworks.

If you are unsure, we can build a small trial module. We assess not only how fast it is to implement, but also code readability, testability, performance and how it is deployed.