Related
So in class, we've been applying css frameworks like Bootstrap, Foundation, Normalize.css but I do not understand what the point is of using them. Can someone briefly explain WHY they are used? How am I supposed to know which framework to use? For example, let's say I made a basic HTML file for my blog and I want to style it. Would I need to use a framework? How would I know which to use? How is it different from just styling on my own from scratch? I know these seem like stupid, ridiculous questions but I just started learning CSS a month ago and do not understand what frameworks like Bootstrap, Foundation, Normalize, etc. are and the purpose of them. Someone please explain as if how they would explain to a little child so I understand? Thanks.
A bit of an opinion-based question, but in short: developers are lazy and it takes time to code sites that are mobile-ready, consistent across browsers, and are easy to manage as browsers get updated.
With frameworks, developers need not waste time figuring any of this out.
For example, with Bootstrap, using the grid system, it is possible to make mobile-ready sites with minimal media queries and complex CSS rules.
Using other people's code, which has been tested on production environments and is constantly being patched and updated, saves a lot of time and a lot of bugs down the road.
You can think of frameworks (in any language, not just CSS) as a bunch of existing reusable codes you can readily use for your own projects. They essentially make your life easier because you don't have to reinvent the wheel anymore. Simply put, frameworks are a bunch of tested reusable codes for common tasks.
The purpose is to avoid having to make your CSS from scratch. There are a LOT of CSS activities that most people do over and over. If you look at a wide variety of sites, you'll notice similarities in the way information is presented. As a result, if you're going to be presenting information using one of those standard layouts, it's vastly easier to simply use a CSS framework than roll your own version.
Also, different browsers have different default CSS settings. Using a CSS framework will provide a CSS reset as part of what they do. This helps ensure that what you see in one browser is what will be seen in all browsers. This helps you spend more time building your site and less time trying to figure out why the display is different in a particular version of IE, for example.
frameworks comes with lots of features like grid, components, typography along with good browser compatibility so you can simple use them instead of creating them from scratch. It totally based on project requirement that what framework you should use. Apart from bootstrap and Foundation there are more great out there created by few geeks.
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.
For some reason, it never dawned on me that there could be frameworks for CSS. I have been working on my own personal site, and I just really hate 'designing' with CSS (I think more then a few programmers might agree with me). Anyways, I understand the benefits of a framework for a language such as Java, PHP, [insert language]. I downloaded a couple different CSS frameworks and couldnt really figure out how to use them. I guess I might be expecting an API or something (which obviously doesnt make sense given the lack of logic in CSS)...
Has anyone here used (and would reccomend) a CSS framework? Is it overkill for a relatively simple layout?
Please do not post links to other sites, I know how to use Google. I would rather hear the opinions and insights of the community. Thanks.
Please understand framework here simply as 'a collection of helpers for getting things done'. So what will you get in most cases is a set of CSS definitions, resetters and hacks, which you will probably need to code for yourself anyway when having cross-browser compatibility on mind.
No links? K. First, you should get familiar with Grid Design techniques. My fellow front-end developers recommend Blueprint for handling CSS-based layouts, no matter how complex they are. Hope this helps a little.
Caveat: I haven't really looked into this subject in a few years, the landscape may have changed.
The few CSS frameworks I've played with in the past have been more or less hideous things designed for snapping to grids, wrongheaded desires to bring WYSIWYG into the picture, and providing things like generic rounded corners and such. They tend to have some semantic issues (.italic FTL) and require a lot of manual tinkering for a framework.
More practical for the CSS beginner or rapid dev site, are perhaps the CSS reset which functions to baseline CSS across browsers (yahoo's) (Erik Meyer's). But this is not without it's own controversy and never seemed to be enough.
Basically. I find CSS requires a toolbox of common techniques of your own, but something you'll pick and choose and modify constantly. As in much of web dev I think the more experienced you get the more you find yourself wanting to roll your own.
I used YAML (Yet Another Multicolumn Layout) in a few projects, because I didn't like to "fight" with the Internet Explorer 6 HACKS.
There is a good explanation of how to use it and you can customize it to your needs (as long as you're going to use a multicolumn (2 or 3) layout).
960.gs seems to be fairly popular with designers lately, although I have never quite seen the point to CSS frameworks myself.
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.
I know that tables are for tabular data, but it's so tempting to use them for layout. I can handle DIV's to get a three column layout, but when you got 4 nested DIV's, it get tricky.
Is there a tutorial/reference out there to persuade me to use DIV's for layout?
I want to use DIV's, but I refuse to spend an hour to position my DIV/SPAN where I want it.
#GaryF: Blueprint CSS has to be the CSS's best kept secret.
Great tool - Blueprint Grid CSS Generator.
There's the Yahoo Grid CSS which can do all sorts of things.
But remember: CSS IS NOT A RELIGION. If you save hours by using tables instead of css, do so.
One of the corner cases I could never make my mind up about is forms. I'd love to do it in css, but it's just so much more complicated than tables.
You could even argue that forms are tables, in that they have headers (labels) and data (input fields).
In the UK and in US there is a legal requirement for favouring CSS layouts over Tables. Both Section 508 (US) and the Disability Discrimination Act (UK) cover accessibility standards for users with limited vision.
In the UK the legislation extends so far as to actually make it illegal to commercially produce a site that impedes the ability of a partially sighted user in the same way that it is now illegal to have a shop with a step to enter it and no way for a wheelchair user to get in - admittedly there have been no prosecutions over website accessibility yet. However I would always go with CSS as it means that your site design is so much easier to maintain in the longer term.
Investing time in learning CSS (I used W3C schools and .Net Magazine http://www.netmag.co.uk) will pay off.
Why tables for layout is stupid: problems defined, solutions offered.
In my opinion, the bias should be in favour of CSS over IE6 - i.e. unless there's an insanely good reason (e.g. your site is only targetted at people using IE6, which would be weird), it's better to 'alienate' people using IE6 rather than people with poor vision and/or automated user agents. Usage of IE6 is decreasing; the latter group is increasing in number. Even if your site doesn't look perfect in IE6, it will probably be easy for those users to read it than a table-based layout will for those who can't see it.
This is a very general question, so it's difficult to answer with specifics. The two books that are excellent resources are:
Bulletproof Web Design, Dan Cederholm
CSS Mastery, Andy Budd
If you only have to spend an hour designing your overall site layout, that's not bad going.
CSS may not be a religion, but it is how browsers interpret HTML for layout. Like it or not, all modern browsers use (some version) of the W3C box model. To continue to rely on tables is continue to rely on a methodology that is just plain wrong in the eyes of the people who design web rendering technology.
I know CSS can seem awfully complicated at times, but I believe it is a necessity in this day and age (trust me, your clients are going to want it).
If you don't feel comfortable taking the time really learn CSS (so it takes you seconds or minutes to position elements...not an hour), then you need to pass the layout work on to someone who knows really knows the front-end.
Yes, there are a lot of problems with the current browser implementations of CSS, but nothing so drastic that you should ever feel the need to return to table based layout. Just sit down and take the time to learn it, like you would any other language or framework.
The best online reference resource I've found is this one:
http://reference.sitepoint.com/css
But it might not hurt to look at a book like Designing With Web Standards which goes a long way in helping you to understand why this stuff is important.
I was also thinking Blueprint was great until I saw YAML (Yet Another Multicolumn Layout). There is an online builder tool which is fantastic. I can get a cool looking multicolumn layout within 5 mins.
After a while you don't even think about it. Using divs with CSS seems like the easier option imo. Plus, you have more freedom when using frameworks such as jQuery. I couldn't imagine doing some of the cool jQuery stuff without using css or divs. If you use tables for style and layout I feel like you miss out on a lot of new technologies and stay stuck in the 90's.
This may be unhelpful but I somehow don't understand all these problems related to CSS. If a newspaper designer would try to embed a movie in the ad page, everybody would agree that he's a bit crazy. But still those same people pine after three-column layouts in HTML. HTML is just not apt to handle this kind of layout well at the moment. Furthermore, multi-column layouts are generally not really well-suited for reading on computer monitors. Aren't there enough viable alternatives?
And by the way, even tables don't offer a good way of implementing a fluent column layout so this is no reason at all to resort to such hacks. Assuming a halfway modern browser (i.e. > MSIE 6), tables don't offer any advantages over clean HTML + CSS that I know of.
I would just use the table.
In my experience, using a table for layout will work the same in all browsers and the CSS will not (especially if you're trying to support IE6). It's just not worth the hours and hours of coding to get a layout to work in CSS when it can be done in 10 minutes using a table.
The other advantage to using tables is that your layout can very easily dynamically size itself to content. Trying to get that done with CSS is a huge nightmare.
I find there are lots of limitations to CSS that just seem to hint the specification designers don't make websites for a living.
Use HTML tables if you can't do it easy in CSS.
Having said that, some of the frameworks do help and it always nicer to do in CSS if you can manage it.
You might be able to find some inspiration here: http://blog.html.it/layoutgala/
A List Apart is a great reference for using semantic HTML, the Holy Grail article is probably one of the best examples. Also, check out CSS Zen Garden for some inspiration on the topic or read Dave Shea's excellent book "The Zen of CSS Design."
You use CSS for layout because not only is it semantically correct but because tables have multiple drawbacks.
Tables are horrible for accessibility because they break almost all screen readers, which in turn gives the visually impaired worthless information because of the way the tables are read.
They also render much slower than their CSS counterparts. Tables have to be drawn twice, once for the layout, and again for the content. This can mean that if you have a remote image or two on a server with a slow connection that your ENTIRE LAYOUT will not render.
Would you use an array to store a dictionary when you have a hashmap? No. And you shouldn't use a table when there's something out there which works better.