What is the point of these CSS Frameworks? I don't understand them. When I look at them, all I see is boring layouts that seem overbearingly-difficult to adapt to your own unique designs.
Is this the case, or am I just missing something here? I'm referring to (frameworks in general) things like Blueprint, Less, Skeleton, 960 Grid system, Base, Gridless, etc etc etc.
I know this is a really simple thing but I just don't get it. I have searched but have not found anything that helps me to understand what the big deal is. When I look at their code, all I see is mess. Weird class and id names all over the place.
(This isn't a rant or complaint by the way, I just really don't get it.)
CSS frameworks are pre-prepared software frameworks that are meant to
allow for easier, more standards-compliant web design using the
Cascading Style Sheets language. Most of these frameworks contain at
least a grid. More functional frameworks also come with more features
and additional JavaScript based functions, but mostly design
orientated and unobtrusive. This differentiates these from functional
and full JavaScript frameworks. -Wikipedia
Advantages
They can help you learn CSS. You might just literally not know how to pull off a solid multi-column layout. A framework may be a
good place to get your feet wet understanding how CSS works.
They provide code that you just don't need to write from scratch every time, like resets. I've long been a proponent that the star
selector (*) margin/padding reset is a fine reset. I use it all the
time. But... if you are starting a major new project that is going
to be loads of pages, live for years and years, and will grow over
time, you should invest right away in a more robust reset. All
these frameworks start with brilliant resets that cover all the
bases and will have you covered for years to come.
They relieve cross-browser concerns. You can't undervalue this. We've all felt the burn of finding out our sites are borked
in some browser or another at a hugely inopportune time. Frameworks
are built to bring their magic to all browsers.
It helps you build good habits. Like including a print stylesheet in your projects. I always intend to build one, and I
often do, but the chances are a lot higher that I do it if I have
one there from the get-go.
They encourage grid based design. Which is a good thing. Grids don't mean boring! They just help you achieve better
readability, scanability, balance visual weight, flexibity,
expandability, and just overall page page cohesiveness.
They come with documentation. If you need help getting started, framework generally come with some support files. This can be
particularly nice if you are designing a site you will be handing
off to a client. You can just let them know what framework you used
and refer them to that documentation for support requests.
They lay groundwork. If you are using something like YUI, your life will be a lot easier if you use All-YUI-Stuff-All-The-Time.
It's built to work together and built for expandability.
CSS-Tricks
Also see: Comparison of CSS frameworks
Related
I've recently been going over some HTML and CSS stuff to get more into web development, I have been designing sites on and off for a while now and I would love to start actually developing some.
I've seen Bootstrap mentioned so many times all over the internet and I was wondering if someone could help me out and point me in the right direction... I've been learning the fundamentals of HTML/CSS and as I understand it, Bootstrap is a html/css UI framework?
I have my own UI designs in a PSD file, how would I get them to work within Bootstrap?
Is it a matter of slicing up my images and adding custom CSS into Bootstrap?
I know that I am a long way off from this, but this is the type of stuff I want to be doing:
http://heyflat.com/themes/todo/index.html
If you can point me towards the type of stuff I should be learning in order to get there I would much appreciate it, so far I will continue with my html/css stuff but I would love to start using Bootstrap and customizing it seems essential to me for what I would like to be able to achieve...
Thank you for reading :)
Updated
Overall, my process has not changed much except for how I think about converting PSDs to HTML and CSS. I look forward to the day I discover a tool as flexible and comfortable as Photoshop that can output directly to good HTML and CSS. That day has yet to come to me. Here's the process I follow, utilizing Photoshop and Bootstrap.
I find that Photoshop is a great way to imagine, share and iterate over a visual design because it frees me to experiment in ways that are currently either impossible or too time consuming to realize just with HTML and CSS.
Once a design is agreed upon, I begin planning how the target design will be realized with HTML, CSS and JavaScript.
I consider the browsers of my target audience. For example, IE8-, does not support rounded borders. If IE8- users are a large portion of my audience and those rounded borders are critical to the design I may take the time to slice out images and add extra HTML and CSS.
I decide if I am going to use a framework like bootstrap. Browser support must also be considered when deciding on a framework. If a framework has examples like bootstrap then I can checkout those examples in various browsers. If using a framework then I commit to doing it their way. That is, I use their grid system, html and class names for everything. I only add my own when the framework cannot meet a specific need. I do augment their classes as needed using a separate stylesheet but always in appropriate, low risk ways, bootstrap encourages this. I will probably never augment the grid system except perhaps through their customizer, but I have never needed to do that.
Next I implement the design. I may find that some elements need to be sliced out of the PSD, but most, like drop shadows, rounded borders and gradients, can be rendered using CSS. Some aspects of the PSD may need to be tweaked to accommodate responsive behavior or to make implementation simpler. As has always been the case, I target standards compliant browsers first and adjust for the others later. One of the nice parts about a good framework is that there is usually very little that needs tweaked.
I review the document at various resolutions in browsers my target audience use, and consider and implement additional tradeoffs as needed. For example, if it is not critical that those rounded corners show up in IE8- then I will keep it simple, render them using CSS, and let IE8- alone. I still verify that it looks acceptable in IE8 and IE7.
Steps 4 and 5 are generally not sequential but steps I bounce back and forth on. Also, make sure your client is on board or you can get them on board with how you are supporting various (not-so-modern) browsers and your reasons for doing so (shorter load times, less development time, easier maintenance, and so on).
Bootstrap 2 examples: http://getbootstrap.com/2.3.2/getting-started.html#examples
Bootstrap 3 examples: http://getbootstrap.com/getting-started/#examples
I've been using XHTML for about 3 years now, and didn't care much about HTML5 and CSS3 arrival. Several months ago I've stumbled upon HTML5 Boilerplate and I'm starting to get very interested in it right now.
The only thing I can't find yet is drawbacks of using this set of best practices. I know, that the main goal of it to make site look the same on wide variety of browsers, but is there something I should be aware about?
Is there something I should be aware about?
Yes, definitely. It's not a plug-and-play thing. Or at least, it could be like that but it hasn't been conceived for that. And if you use it this way you can't enjoy its best. Boilerplate is very flexible and you have to learn how to customize it. Full stop.
My personal suggestion is to start experimenting with it and study the features it has to offer. Luckily for us it's well documented and you can learn a lot. Not only the boilerplate itself, but also the rules and best practices about HTML5, CSS3, resources loading and related issues/workarounds on performances, browsers quirks and how to fix them, tricks for mobile development, polyfills and conditional loading and a lot of other crazy stuffs. Once you are aware of its possibilities, if you'll find drawbacks you'll be able to customize the base boilerplate.
Start from here, read the docs, follow every link and don't be tempted to take shortcuts. It takes time, but you'll be rewarder very well. If you have troubles ask.
For something more concrete, a drawback I found very quickly (but someone consider this a plus) is that the boilerplate doesn't provide a CSS grid. Not a huge problem, I discovered that adapt.js is easily integrable, so I replaced normalize.css with adapt.js's reset stylesheet and used the grid.
Two things I noticed couple months back is the way javascript gets loaded at the bottom of the body. I'm not a big fan of this if not only it looks dirty. Also I tested the loading myself and didn't notice any better loading of javascript. In fact it ran a couple ms slower on a huge script.
Also the normalize.css I tried couple of times but found myself restyling more paddings and margins than before. Which is normal ofcourse since it's goal is somewhat similar but a different approach. I changed this to Eric Meyer's reset.css just because I'm used to it.
I really like the modernizr script and the way to implement things for x-browser results.
Google Analytics implementation for example.
Another small thing I remember was the placing of the title tag. I changed it to the top position for SEO reasons.
I am starting server side programming with RoR. I am noticing that it's tightly coupled with css/html web design. (Maybe I am just perceiving it that way since this is my first time doing server side stuff).
I just want to know, are server side programmers usually well knowledgeable in css/html layout stuff? I understand the ruby part, but css is giving me a headache. Debugging with different browsers/testing/ a lot of trial and error and still buggy. Finally you get it to work with Firefox and I.E doesn't work anymore...
How do server-side programmers out there usually tackle the "looks"/UI? Do they get someone else to do the css stuff and worry mostly about the functionality?
Thanks.
I answered a similar question here.
Most of the times from something basic, like twitter-bootstrap is now fantastic to get something up and running quickly.
What happens next is up to you: either you have some interest and learn some design skills. Or you get in touch with a designer to do the designing for you. I seriously think you will need to have some HTML/CSS skills yourself, but that is not the same as designing.
It depends on the development shop your working for I suppose. Larger companies tend to have some people focus on the backend, and some on the front end to best suit peoples talents.
I would highly recommend becoming familiar with the front end UI as well for your own benefit though. Most small web development shops are seeking full stack developers that can manage all aspects of the web app from server configuration, backend logic, and UI. You'll be much more well rounded in solving your own challenges, and become a more valuable employee with a diverse skill set.
Since your using RoR I would recommend becoming familiar with SASS and Coffescript since they can save a lot of development time. Also sass provides excellent mixin features to help solve your CSS cross browser issues, which you can find several prepackaged ones in Thoughtbots bourbon gem. https://github.com/thoughtbot/bourbon
The question is impossible to answer.
Many server-side devs are well-versed in HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, at least up to the "Oh that's the IE7 off-by-one bounding rectangle absolute-div positioning bug" point.
However, I think some groups of server-side devs are generally more adept than others: server-side environments like RoR, PHP, and so on tend to push more HTML/CSS onto the devs than, say, Java.
For me, the trick has been to keep the HTML and CSS relatively clean (sass/scss helps a lot), not obsess about pixel-perfect cross-browser appearances, and have layouts that you don't have to mess with much. There are HTML/CSS frameworks that help in this regard.
Conversely, a lot of designers don't know enough JavaScript to be useful--I think it is important for site developers to know enough JavaScript to provide the necessary functionality. Here again, the frameworks tend to breed different levels of JavaScript awareness, although that's changed somewhat as more sites get more interactive.
I have been looking at CSS3/HTML5 frameworks available, but there is simply too many to make a decision quickly, and they all seem to be focused on streamlining javascript development and UI elements.
In particular, a very useful part of a framework would be to create CSS-based layouts quickly - without having to worry about browser compatibility. However, without actually using the existing frameworks it seems impossible to understand whether the existing frameworks do that, or how they do it.
For example, I would like to create a simple layout that fills the whole page but has a minimum height/width. This should be a 5-line CSS declaration but it's a headache because of IE. Ideally a good framework would allow me to define this once, instead of adding in a special solution for every browser.
Which of the existing frameworks address this? I'm not talking necessarily about frameworks (as the meaning of 'framework' is somewhat loose when talking about HTML/CSS) but other things that you find helpful in development.
I have looked at column-layout frameworks like 960.gs or blueprint but they seem to be geared toward website development, rather than web application development.
Thanks,
960 sounds right up your alley. http://960.gs/ you can tie it with adapt.js to make it adaptive. http://adapt.960.gs/
personally if i have to use a css framework, i'll go with oocss https://github.com/stubbornella/oocss/wiki but i think 960 is exactly what you are looking for.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a development process question.
Background: I work for a modest sized website where, historically, the designers created mockups/screenshots of what they wanted pages and components to look like, and the engineering team (myself included) turned them into html/css.
This works relatively well from a code cleanliness perspective, and helps significantly when it comes to writing javascript. It has fails, however, in helping to maintain consistency from one page/component to another. On one page, a header font might be 12px and on another 11px, largely because its a complicated site with lots to keep track of (and we've cycled through 4 designers.) We have only a few truly universal styles, and they only get used when the engineers recognizes the style - not when the designer tells them to.
Our most recent designer is a relatively capable HTML/CSS coder. We thought we might have him create mockups in HTML/CSS and hand us off the code for quick integration. Our hope was that the designer would be better at being consistent in his style and that it might save us some development time up front.
What we've discovered is that our designer is not quite as good as CSS as we had hoped and that his code is often slightly bloated and incompatible with what we need to do. Also, his style of coding is fundamentally different from the rest of the engineering team and isn't jiving terribly well with our established coding practices.
Question: How do you do the hand off from design to engineering? I know I've heard of companies that let their design team do all of the template coding, but I'm curious how that works. Does the design team actually incorporate members of the engineering team in those scenarios?
As we're structured right now, there's not a chance in hell we'd let our designer write the final templates and check them into SVN, even if he was a proficient HTML wiz. There's too much in the templates that requires knowledge of our codebase and of potential performance issues.
How do we get this process working? Is it a pipe dream?
Specifically - personally - since I come from a web-dev, small-shop background I do the CSS work and slicing the PSD (typically) myself. But then I like to think I'm well rounded like that :)
Generally, the best experience I've had of this was a largish company with very defined groups of developers including the design team who produced the gfx, the apps team who did the vast bulk of server-side coding and app architecture, and the UE (user experience) team who sewed the two together, producing XSLT/JSP/HTML markup in general, and the CSS and JS for the client-side.
There was a very structured process of:
userstory ->
"wireframe" (documents) ->
design (PSD) ->
"flat" markup (DHTML only) ->
integrated markup (with web-app)
Where "wireframe" would be close to a spec for UE, produced with UML or maybe visio. I have heard the term applied to step 4 which I think fits better, but this is what it was referred to as there.
Whilst this works well for the question at hand, I found it had other problems built in. It was very hard to work across teams, and because of the timescales the design team rarely involved UE in decision making (which put UE in some awkward positions), the apps team and design could be working at cross-purposes, and there wasn't a lot of scope to learn in these boxed in teams.
My suspicion (and I think ideal scenario) is that the developers on a project would each be capable of working with, say, 80% of the technology involved (be it CSS, SQL, whatever) to spread the decision control and risk, but each domain would have one (more?) "czar" who could act as authority and oversight within the domain. Actually producing those designs is to my mind a strange and magical skill in it's own right so I see no real overlap with developers there, but I think a pool of artists and project teams of cross-skilled programmers would be very powerful.
Apols for the long-windedness. I could go on at considerable length on this, I've spent a lot of time thinking about it.
btw, it seems like you could do with some serious web-devs there, (no offence). Having problems to "maintain consistency from one page/component to another" screams failure to grok CSS
In my experience, unless you limit your design severely, you need real coding skills to build a web page with interaction. Let me elaborate some. If you have built your pages very modular (think of GUI toolkit widgets) you can give your designer a handful of them, he can build the basic structure like playing toy blocks with a nice finishing paint.
Often, modularization alone is not enough for desired interactivity. So, some blocks needs their interactions to be designed carefully as well (like animation, fluid layout to accommodate indeterminate content, customized behaviour via extra javascript, caching to eliminate redundant requests and speeding up things) or ability to accommodate minor presentation variations, which brings us to the realm of programming, where you calculate dimensions, enable/disable parts, keep track of time, preload stuff, invalidate preloaded stuff and so on.
Enter HTML/CSS/JS. They are more of a product of evolution than intelligent design. You cannot always declare your intent and be done with it. You need attributes declared in your html, stupid hacks in CSS combined with extra markup, ridiculous amounts of js to smooth rough edges, duplicate rendering code on the server side. These tool were never meant to build applications.
I don't think one can achieve a complete separation of design and application development in these tools at hand. The effort required is too high to justify the marginal returns.
If you end up heavily modifying designer's code (which is othen the case if he is not one of the developers also), there is no point in making him suffer trying to express his intent using the wrong tools, nor developers breaking the design while modifying it and consequently fixing it. I don't even mention user experience.
In my opinion, no small internet businesses who want to ship a product in a reasonable time should spend their scarce resources to go against the grain. Let people do what they do best in collaboration if necessary. If you can't divide design process at an arbitrary satisfying point, you may as well not bother to separate at all. Pipelining works well for machines whose goal is determined to the last detail and not changing. I can't say the same for humans building and designing things be it software or hardware.
Where I work it's basically the same. Designers create mock-ups and specifications of the UI design, right down to the pixel, and the developer creates HTML/CSS/code out of that.
The reason I say code, is that we use UI frameworks (namely, GWT), and as much as we would want to, code and CSS styles are still very coupled. I do not believe there exists one UI framework in which code can be completely decoupled from the UI design.
So I guess for now it's still entirely the developers job. Though I would like to hear about organization which are able to hand off some of the work to designers.
The problem with handoffs is that the idea and implementation of one group is not going to match the abilities and implementation of the next group. Just by their nature handoffs are going to be wrought with problems. So what is an alternative to the ubiquitous handoff scenario? I think that integrating the user experience (UX) into an agile and iterative development process makes sure that what is really important occurs:
The customer's needs are researched then validated.
Early and continuous collaborating between usability experts, designers and programmers.
The actual process works by having everyone collaborate with the customer up-front on their needs. Then the design is researched and prototyped in the iteration before coding begins. Thus when coding is occurring, the next set of designs are being worked on. Programmers should be looking forward at what designers are doing and the designers look back to be sure programmers are on target. Once a design is coded, it goes to the customer for acceptance, by that time the programmers are working on the next set of interfaces.
Jeff Patton did a podcast on Agile UX recently that goes into some of the implementation concepts and common problems.
There is a whole group on Yahoo dedicated to agile usability (which mostly involves interface design).
For the CSS inconsistencies... I'd just suggest making a style guide then trying to stick to it. Have someone be in charge of "design consistency" that way the can spank anyone inventing yet another way to display the user.
At my company, my ideal work flow doesn't work very often, but sometimes it does. I löve when this happens: The engineers write the webapp and output semantic html with only minimal CSS. then you have the designers do the CSS.
I like it when it goes this way, because:
It is easy for me to write semantic
HTML.
I am not very good at coming up
with a good design for my semantic
html.
It is entirely possible to do
the CSS without asking me questions.
The markup just speaks for itself.
However, this rarely works. Because:
The CSS has to be modified whenever the HTML changes and the designers' time is sparse.
Moreover, our designers don't enjoy styling my markup, and fighting for their time is not pleasant.
Our designers often want to change the markup. Mostly because they believe some layouts cannot be done without changing the markup or because they believe that it's the only way to make IE obey. They are technically not able to change the markup, though.
I have my doubts about many of their cases. Many times they claim IE incompatibility, I strongly doubt they really know IE that well. There are neat CSS hacks to make IE obey without resorting to
<br clear="all">
So, sadly, usually this ideal is a little off for me.
A separate designer - developer workflow is the best way to go. Designing a website and coding it are altogether different jobs. There are issues of cross browser compatability, CSS, XHTML, apart from coding standards to deal with.
You could also opt for outsourcing your HTML to a specialized PSD to HTML conversion expert like us (ButterflyHTML). It may work out cost effective in the long run