I have something on my mind for quite a while but couldn't find an answer to it. Consider the following:
You like to build a fancy website with React and have to decide which front-end framework you should use. In my example I have chosen Material-UI.
Now you came to a point where you need more features like a responsive grid system, show/hide styles etc. Instead of implementing them on your own (or copying it from bootstrap/foundation, for example) you think: 'Hey, why wouldn't I include another framework beside Material-UI'.
Now comes the question. I know that most of the css frameworks available have their own normalisation css and basic styles for typography and other elements.
Can I safely include another (more featured) css framework beside Material-UI without breaking fundamental things or should I avoid that?
Furthermore, what is a good practice approach to extend the css features without copying parts from other frameworks and without reinventing the wheel all the time. Did you ever had a case or project where you had to combine multiple front-end frameworks and how did you solve this problem?
Thanks for your feedback.
Cheers
Gregor
FYI, there's a Material Design version of Foundation, you can check it out at http://eucalyptuss.github.io/material-foundation/
Now, talking about your doubts... one should be very careful when mixing and/or using more than one framework at the same time... one issue can be conflict, other can be unnecessary bloating which could make load time heavier.
However, if you are aware of that, most of modern frameworks (as Foundation) can be compiled partially, so you will be loading only the stuff you'll use, minimizing all possible issues.
Have been thinking this exactly thing lately.. I would choose one that has most of the features i need in my project. I usually go just with Bootstrap (sass version) and use only the styling part of that (css grids mostly).
Mixing frameworks will eventually be hard to maintain and you have to include lot of extra (unused) features into your application. When using some "cool", full featured components like Material-UI has, there will still be times when some component doesn't have just the property you would need.
So my opinion is:
Use some framework for styling only. This way you have uniform look in your site. Or even just some responsive grid library could be enough.
Usually basic html components are enough to fill basic needs, you can just build your own custom components for special needs (or use some from npm library). This way you have just the features you need.
This way my site is not depending just some single framework. I can change the styling part anytime, i can change one component to another etc. without having to re-write my whole application just because it's been developed entirely with some "full featured" framework.
I have implemented a Rails project which has a lot of forms, but they do not look good. The new, edit, and destroy buttons are very close to each other. Listing the items in each form is also ugly as the columns are very close; they definitely need CSS and styling. Is there any sample or template that I can use?
For general styling you can use Bootstrap, there is even a gem to make it easier to integrate.
For better layouts and automating the form building process such as new, edit actions, you can use Formtastic.
Another one that's as popular is simple_form.
You can find even more form builders at the ruby toolbox site.
As you have mentioned little about your application, its hard to tell what styling you should chose. However as #olive_tree mentioned, bootstrap is simpler and a convenient option. You may want to check this rails cast
http://railscasts.com/episodes/328-twitter-bootstrap-basics?view=asciicast
Bootstrap is definitely a good place to start. Personally I prefer ZURB Foundation, though, but that is mostly a matter of preference. Here is a link on how to integrate Foundation the easiest way:
http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/applications.html
I am going to write a simple layout system for a game GUI. I thought about the various layout systems used in GUI, such as absolute positioning, Java’s layout managers, springs and struts and the like. In the end I found out that I prefer the layout as viewed by CSS – padding, margin, floats, blocks, inlines, etc. Have you ever seen an application GUI done like this? Not a web application, but a “real” application where the CSS layout system must have been written from scratch. Do you think it possible to get a working and expressive CSS-like layout system, even if very simple, with a decent amount of code?
Update: I do not want to create the GUI from an external stylesheet. I would be happy with a runtime interface, ie. something like this:
Widget *container = [Container withWidth:100 height:100];
Widget *button1 = [Button withText:#"Foo"];
Widget *button2 = [Button withText:#"Bar"];
button1.floating = button2.floating = YES;
[container addObjects: button1, button2, nil];
Should have said that earlier, sorry.
I'm not sure if this would really be the best way to do it but I don't see any problems that would stop you from doing it.
You would need a CSS Parser of some kind to actually create the GUI from the stylesheet but I guess thats doable. There already are a bunch of CSS Parsers out there which you would probably just have to costumize a little as to fit your specific needs for the GUI.
I've done this in the past, and it's really only doable if you don't implement the CSS spec to the letter and just implement the stuff that you need. What I ended up doing was implementing a CSS parser, the selector statements and the cascading rules. The properties and the layout model were completely different because that simply wasn't needed at that time. I'd say that that also would've been where the bulk of the work of writing a full CSS engine would've been.
What I've done instead was create something that mimics the way HTML tables work because they are conceptually easy to work with and because the application itself was impartial to the whole "semantic web" discussion.
I couldn't find a lot of helpful resources on this, except for the CSS spec itself, because it contains the flex and bison syntax rules already.
Edit: in that case, you might want to look at how WebKit and Mozilla have implemented their layout engines as a reference.
No, I have never seen an application be designed around CSS's naming scheme.
Yes, I think it is entirely possible to create such a system, programmers are able to programmatically move buttons and other fields around. Generally using the default functions and parameters that exist for the widgets, if you were to use those widgets and just derived from them you would be able to accomplish what you wanted.
I am unsure as to why you would like to do this, but the answer is yes it is possible!
Is there anything that CSS Frameworks give that its not easy to make yourself?
The main use I have for CSS frameworks is that they tend to force you to think about how you're going to organise you code rather than provide you with indispensable tools for your day to day tasks.
For that reason, I'm a fan of boilerplate rather than things like blueprint as boilerplate tends to focus on how you structure your css stylesheets and imports rather than providing you with a collection of semantically confusing helper classes.
They are simply a convenience and as such are good for things like wireframing and rapid prototyping. They are probably also a good way to learn CSS layout aswell if you can familiarise yourself with the layout code.
What I don't like about CSS frameworks is that they encourage the use of non-semantic class names and are a bit heavy handed for a simpler designs. I still think it's very important to understand how CSS layout works and not to just rely on the frameworks because you'd be limiting your creativity and what you could achieve. Sometimes reading CSS files from the csszengarden site can teach you things you weren't sure of how to achieve.
For wireframing this is the most promising CSS framework I've seen:
http://designinfluences.com/fluid960gs/
I think that all depends on your own knowledge and the project. If you have a lot of small business clients, or for other reasons makes a lot of similar designs, I think it saves some time to use css frameworks. And you save time for browser bugfixing, but you should always test anyways.
But if your CSS skills are good, you know the most common IE bugs and how to hack them, I dont see any need of using a framework in most cases.
A reset stylesheet of some description is a worthwhile starting point.
For example:
http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/reset/
IE6 compatibility.
given that you are already familiar with one particular framework, it's easier and quicker to do certain common grid layouts. You might want to learn and try to stick with a framework if you are doing a lot of CSS.
Blueprint CSS is the CSS framework I prefer.
Yes, testing testing and more testing. Do you have time to test and debug your code in all browsers? If you have it's the best to write your own code. If you need quick solution you can use some framework. I wrote one post about this subject: http://www.vcarrer.com/2008/08/when-to-use-css-framework.html
It depends on the framework and your end-goal.
A lot of times they can work as guides with pre-defined templates to aid your development effort. But other times you just want your page to look nicer and not have to deal with actual work on CSS files. In the latter, you can skip the "make yourself" part altogether, and invest more effort into other parts of your project.
Take Skeleton and Tacit CSS frameworks for example. Both are pretty much minimal frameworks. The first is more centered on providing easy to use and adapt the boilerplate code and comes with a moderate amount of utility. Tacit on the other hand is a CSS framework for dummies, for people who, for example, have no interest in working with CSS but still want to get a nicer display look than the default CSS-less HTML display, and they want this out-of-the-box, not having to work with CSS classes.
i think that compatibility of any kind is best achieved when we band together, whether it be using CSS or Javascript frameworks, there's bound to be more chance that bugs will get fixed and wishes will get granted. there's also the chance that similar interfaces reduce the amount of training required for new users of your site.
I would never, ever use a CSS framework. They don't make anything faster or easier, increase code bloat and make debugging or testing much harder. If I do use a CSS framework to start with, it looks like this:
body {}
In what way would you ever need more than that? the baseline starting point should always be what the browser displays by default, nothing more.
Reset CSS stylesheets cause the same problems.
eg: http://withoutsubstance.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-you-should-never-ever-ever-use.html
I've worked with 960 a bit and found it's great for prototyping but I'm not a fan of putting it into production. I find the use of float makes my head hurt a little.
There's a common misconception that frameworks == bloat and another that a particular implementation of a framework represents the definition. A framework is just a tool. Here's an analogy: If you need a spanner to fix your car, you shouldn't throw away your screwdriver set.
If you've found that the frameworks you've looked at aren't suitable to the task at hand, you shouldn't write them off. You can easily make your own or use frameworks when they suit your needs.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
Reading on another forum I've came across the world of CSS Frameworks. The one I've been specifically looking at is BluePrint. I was wondering if anyone else had come across CSS frameworks, suggest which is the best and if they are worth the effort?
CSS 'frameworks' are completely missing the point.
CSS is not like JavaScript, where you can include a base library/framework and then call functions and objects from it to do higher-level work. All a CSS framework can give you is declarative rules: some default browser-rule-reset stuff, some class styles to be forced to author your page to, and layout rules using 'float' and 'clear'. You can write that in a few lines of CSS yourself rather than pulling in the bloat of a hundred framework rules.
The 'grid layout' stuff in particular goes back to the bad old days of mixing your presentation into your markup. 'div class="span-24"' is no better than a table, you'll have to go back in there and change the markup to affect the layout. And all the frameworks I've seen are based around fixed-pixel floated boxes, making it impossible to create a liquid layout accessible on a wide range of window sizes.
It's backwards authoring, of use only for someone too scared to write a CSS rule.
So, nobody's responded to this question yet (although I've seen a few upvotes), so I am going to at least attempt to tackle the second question in this prompt.
CSS Frameworks are great; like any other framework, they reduce development time and let you get working immediately on site-specific design and CSS. They think about hard decisions so you don't have to.
Unfortunately, there are two downsides to using a framework (in general):
The framework dictates the overall structure and mechanics of your CSS code. Now, I'm not talking about a CSS reset (these are useful in their own right, but they are not true frameworks); I'm talking about an honest to good framework, that has already made the decisions about what semantic tags you are going to be using in your document, etc. As such, you are made dependent on the framework, and when there is a bug in the framework, you will most commonly have to fix it yourself.
Frameworks are not an excuse for being oblivious to cross-browser/advanced CSS issues. You will invariably run into them, just as you would working with a PHP or JavaScript framework. And you need to know how to deal with them. There is a common saying that you should write your own framework first, before using someone else's.
Taking a quick peek at Blueprint, I would not really call it a framework; maybe a reset with a few extra goodies on top.
I've looked at BluePrint and a few others and the only CSS 'framework' I'd recommend is YUI Grids
Pros:
Written by one of the best frontend engineers out there (IMO) (Nate Koechley)
Very small. 4KB
Very flexible (1000 different layouts)
Supports fluid-width (100%) layouts as well as preset fixed-width layouts at 750px, 950px, and 974px, and the ability to easily customize to any number.
Supports easy customization of the width for fixed-width layouts.
Template columns are source-order independent, so you can put your most important content first in the markup layer for improved accessibility and search engine optimization (SEO).
Self-clearing footer. No matter which column is longer, the footer stays at the bottom.
Layouts less than 100% are automatically centered.
Somewhat semantic classnames (better than top, left, right, etc)
Cons:
Lots of extra markup compared to hand-written HTML and CSS
Takes some learning to figure out how to do complex layouts
As other have posted, there are no real 'frameworks' for CSS. Reset stylesheets help a lot with layout too. I usually stick with a reset stylesheet and go from there. But if you don't have a lot of CSS experience YUI Grids could save you some time.
Compass is an actual CSS framework in the sense that it gives you not only templates (both YUI and blueprint), but also reusable constructs and higher-level declarations while still giving you familiar CSS syntax.
Take the time to study and understand (really understand!) a few css frameworks such as BluePrint and YUI, and css resets like Eric Meyer's. Then, take the time to put together your own reset and/or framework based on your work methods and the kind of sites you build.
Personally, I use most of the Eric Meyer reset with some classes and resets of my own, plus a few ideas from BluePrint and YUI.
I recently watched Eric Meyer give a presentation on CSS Frameworks in which he asked the question: "so which one is the right one for me?" He then answered the question by showing a blank slide. His point was, that there are certainly some useful concepts built into most resets and frameworks, but the one that will suit you the best is the one that you write for yourself (it's worth the effort).
Why use css 'frameworks'?
If you are pressured for time.
If you do not know css, and don't
know someone who can write it for
you.
If you are not overly precious about
standards etc.
I know programmers who have been really happy to use blueprint or 960, as it allows them to put together a layout on their own, without turning to a front-end developer. This is ideal for personal projects, or startups with limited resources.
If you have decent knowledge of CSS already, then presumably you have a decent library of stock layouts already, so you clearly won't need a framework.
However, if you're a beginner and just need to get something up and running, then you might turn to a framework, as it makes basic layout much simpler, and tackling browser compatibility also.
Having said all that, many frameworks out of the box do make use of some horrible class names etc. I know of some websites that have taken a framework as a starting point and then customised it with their own class and id tags. But clearly there's a bit of work involved in that rewrite too. Using something like Compass, as mentioned above, does help to get around that.
So, CSS frameworks - they can save you time, at the cost of semantics. They might also hurt your knowledge of CSS, but that is more up to how much you invest in learning the subject in general. Whether you make use of them is up to you.
You'd have to ask yourself how effective the available frameworks are at solving your problems. Do they meet your requirements?
By using a framework, you can set some rules or details at the pixel level and devote the rest of your time to implementing and producing. It's a massive productivity boost. If you find yourself spending time adjusting things by a few pixels late in the project (micro managing the design), it's a sign that a framework can be useful.
Tip #17 in The Pragmatic Programmer says: "Program close to the problem domain". Using a layer of abstraction can get you closer to solving the real problems of layout. For example: you might be able to concentrate of enhancing the user experience with the extra time you have rather than minor adjustments of pixels.
This is not to say you must sacrifice quality for quantity. It's about efficiency.
On a recent project, I made my own framework because we had very limited resources and the popular frameworks didn't do what I wanted. Then, I set up the design team's PSDs to snap to the same grid I deployed.
A framework doesn't have to be any particular implementation of CSS. It doesn't have to be something bloated you downloaded from the interweb or something implementing outdated ideas. It's just a technique for getting a job done. I wouldn't be surprised if some coders already have their own frameworks and don't even know it. In fact, if you consider the DOM as a set of default elements you extend with CSS, then that's a framework by definition.
I actually spent a good portion of the last 24 hours investigating this on my own, heh. My conclusion was that a nice reset (I used YUI Reset), and maybe something else to set baseline stuff (YUI fonts was worthwhile in my case; maybe the "extra goodies" of BluePrint would be in yours) is a good idea. But, a "framework"---which is generally something like YUI grids---is too restrictive, forcing you to use their class names, ids, etc. and rarely fitting into your site like hand-made CSS would.
So in short: resets seem pretty nice; it's good to eliminate all the variation in e.g. margin-vs-padding for lists, or paragraph spacing, or whatever. But that's as far as I would take it.
i haven't used it yes, but i think emastic may be a good alternative worth a check. it it is similar to blueprint in scope, but also supports elastic layouts (hence the name) and you can specify values in px, em or %, and even mix them.
Compass I think is amazing. Make sure you see the screencast.
I am using 960.gs for a few websites and find it very simple and easy and worth the effort. Saves me a lot of work on layout. Make sure to check the custom CSS generator which goes away with the fixed width of 960 pixels.
I think that this video presentation by Site Point CEO Kevin Yank will answer your question. I really recommend to watch it.
Compass lets you rename your framework's classes and ids with your own semantic names, so you might want to check it out. It also provides access to stuff you just don't get with plain-vanilla CSS such as mixins.
I'm astounded by so-called "CSS experts" who criticize these tools without really having digged in and used them. Are they essential? No. If you like your own framework (you do have one of your own, right? A CSS framework is just a carefully defined library--everyone should be using one) then by all means, keep on using it. No one is forcing you to use other frameworks and I don't see people who are using frameworks telling CSS purists that they are "doing it wrong."
Criticizing frameworks from such a standpoint just reveals an insecurity as well as an ignorance. For example, the notion is laughable that a person would use a tool like Compass without knowing CSS. You realize, right, that a framework generally doesn't write all your CSS for you? You can still break out and write your own CSS within the context of most frameworks. In fact, if you don't know CSS you might get frustrated quickly.
For myself, I appreciate having a framework because it is already documented, tested by hundreds of other users, and I can apply my own classes and ids via Compass. If I need something that the framework isn't suitable for, then I'll code my own.
Matt Raible of AppFuse fame had a CSS Framework contest a while back to develop CSS Frameworks for AppFuse. The results are published here. There are a few variations and I have used some myself because I use AppFuse and find them very good.
I should add that these CSS Frameworks work well because they are used in themed applications. That is, if you stick to the rules then switching from one to the next is as simple as changing one value in a properties file.
I have used BluePrint with much success on a site (I could mention the site here but I am sure the post would be marked as spam!). I am not sure if I will use it in the future though because one of the ideas of CSS i thought was to not have layout logic hard coded. You shouldn't have css elements called span-24 and span-12 to define the layout but something like searchBox and mainContent. At least thats how I see it.
Good link I found : Top 12 CSS Frameworks and How to Understand Them
Here is my blog post about CSS Frameworks When to use CSS framework?
The only way I know of to use a CSS framework and retain semantic markup is to use a higher-level abstraction. At the moment, Compass is the only one I'm aware of that's mature enough to use, but Nicole Sullivan seems to be doing some interesting stuff with her "Object-Oriented CSS" project.
I find Compass' clever use of Sass mixins to be brilliant, and a big step toward the Holy Grail of maintainable semantic markup. I don't think I'd want to use a framework like Blueprint or YUI without an abstraction such as Compass to keep presentation classes out of the markup.
BTW, there's a nice-looking CSS framework called Elastic that looks good enough that I'm considering adding it to Compass.
I believe CSS is about simplicity. The goal is to have one or two places to check when you're referencing between the HTML and your stylesheet. Adding more lines, and especially lines that you did not write and are probably not that familiar with, will exponentially increase the complexity thereby volatility of the CSS code.
I would suggest your layouts as you write them and develop a generic template system from that. While I love making CSS more modular, often and depending on the design, your CSS may be very case-specific and not modular at all.
I've used Blueprint on a few one-off sites and it definitely saved time, primarily in cross-browser testing.
It definitely sucks adding presentation code to your markup, although on the bright side it's readable. While I love the concept of "you can redesign without touching the markup", if you're producing a site where that really isn't going to happen anyways and you just need it done yesterday, Blueprint is something to look at.
There are also tradeoffs in what types of layouts it can feasibly create though. If you wireframe the site from the start on a strict grid, it will be much easier to transpose into the framework with a minimum of fuss.
I have used BluePrint and YUI but I always get frustrated with some of the names they give their id and classes.
To each their own, but I prefer doing things from scratch, but after a while you develop a process in which you will use your previous work and apply it to new projects and just make some tweaks to make the web site look the way you would like it to.
Be sure to use a good naming convention, just in case someone else down the road comes in to edit the css, then they will have a good idea what each style name is referring to.
Craig,
Compass is what you're looking for: it allows you to rename your Blueprint CSS classes like "span-24" with your own names. It also expands CSS functionality with variables and mixins. Truly, those that prematurely judge frameworks without having checked out Compass are "missing the point." It's sort of like those folks who told us years ago that we are missing the point by using CSS instead of HTML tables for our layouts.
-Matt
check out http://www.ez-css.org/. one of easiest and lightest css framework to work on. :)
Take a look to this demo:
http://www.richstyle.org/demo-web.php
This framework is based on idea that "HTML tags should be enough".
I think re-usability is the most important factor for choosing a software component, including a web framework.
For web frameworks developers, the more you commit to standards, the more you guarantee re-usability.