Hello, A general wondering.. Which do you prefer to go with, and why? Would you like to start skinning from scratch your own CSS? I don't think so, I personally won't, I'd go with Bootstrap 3. But there are other Frameworks other than Bootstrap, and there might be something good in them, could you share your opinion in the topic? Other frameworks examples: Foundation, Skeleton, HTML5 Boilerplate etc..
Frameworks for HTML/CSS is idiotic halfwit BULLSHIT, that is the antithesis of accessible design and to be frank, defeats the ENTIRE purpose of using CSS in the first place. By their very nature they encourage presentational markup, the presentational uses of classes, and I've never seen anything done with them that was worth a flying purple fish from an accessibility standpoint. The only reason anyone might think they 'save time' or make things 'easier' is having one's head firmly wedged up 1997's backside with outdated presentational coding practices, and failing to grasp how to write semantic markup, and then bending that markup to your will with CSS. Not grasping the simplest of concepts like inheritance also likely adds to people diving for these sleazeball shortcuts. You know, the drooling tools who think HTML 5 offers legimitate improvements or advancements over 4 Strict. Honestly, if you have enough markup and CSS that a 'framework' saves you any time or effort, you're probably doing things all wrong! The closest I come to a 'framework' in terms of a starting point would be this HTML: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en" ><head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> <meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="en" /> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width; height=device-height; initial-scale=1.0" /> <link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="screen.css" media="screen,projection,tv" /> <title> Template Design CSS </title> </head><body> <div id="pageWrapper"> <h1> Site Title <span><!-- image replacement --></span> </h1> <ul id="mainMenu"> <li><a href="home">Home</a></li> </ul> <hr /><!-- remove if content starts with numbered heading --> <div id="contentWrapper"><div id="content"> Page Content Here <!-- #content, #contentWrapper --></div></div> <hr /><!-- remove if sidebar starts with numbered heading --> <div id="extras"> "SideBar" content Here <!-- #extras --></div> <hr /><!-- remove if footer starts with numbered heading --> <div id="footer"> Footer Content Here <!-- #footer --></div> <!-- #pageWrapper --></div> </body></html> Code (markup): mated to this CSS: /* null margins and padding to give good cross-browser baseline */ html,body,address,blockquote,div, form,fieldset,caption, h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6, hr,ul,li,ol,ul,dd,dt, table,tr,td,th,p,img { margin:0; padding:0; } img,fieldset { border:none; } hr { display:none; /* HR in my code are for semantic breaks in topic/section, NOT style/presenation, so hide them from screen.css users */ } @media (max-width:480px) { * { -webkit-text-size-adjust:none; -ms-text-size-adjust:none; } } body { font:normal 85%/150% arial,helvetica,sans-serif; } #pageWrapper { min-width:48em; max-width:72em; width:95%; margin:0 auto; } Code (markup): You need much more than that, you probably shouldn't be making websites in the first place!
I've never gave them a try. I know they're supposed to make things quicker, but they kind of confuse me more.
Lol, relax mate.. The fact that I prefer to use a framework to make things go faster doesn't mean that I can't code a CSS from scratch. Thanks for sharing anyway..
Sorry, but it's one of those "I'm sick of cleaning up these messes" scenarios. I fail to grasp how these sleazy bloated inaccessible piles of trash, welll... People say that a lot, and my gut reaction is always You keep on using that word... There's doing it from scratch, and doing it properly from scratch using things like semantic markup, separation of presentation from content, leveraging inheritance, and so forth that if you are doing... well, you wouldn't see the need for a framework as it sure as shine-ola isn't making anything "faster"... not the development process, not the speed of the page, and given they usually piss all over accessibility in the process (the entire REASON to have responsive layout) I cannot fathom how anyone would choose to use one by choice. The only legitimate reasons I can come up with to use HTML, CSS or even JS frameworks is an ignorance of the technologies involved, or working for some even more ignorant suit who only knows about them as sick buzzwords since they get their technical advice from the pages of Forbes. Which is akin to trying to get financial advice from the pages of Popular Electronics. Of course that most HTML/CSS/JS frameworks are by themselves are half the size or more that I'd allow an entire page template (not counting content images) to be -- and I'm talking HTML+CSS+SCRIPTS+IMAGES on that. Hell, the MINIFIED version of bootstrap (3.1.1 from latest download) at 98k is almost 1.5x larger than my ideal page template size (again, HTML+CSS+SCRIPTS+presentational images/objects) and is built using an even more halfwit idiotic bullshit known as "LESS". LESS, OOCSS, and all the rest are the antithesis of the entire POINT to be using CSS in the first place, and I've never seen them or CSS frameworks used on a website where the result wasn't a fat bloated inaccessible train wreck! They are poster children for everything wrong with web development today where people keep throwing more code, more complex code, and even more cryptic code at pages and then calling it "easier" and "faster" -- when it's the exact opposite of that! I swear, there's something in the kool-aid... Hell, just look at their starter template for proof enough of the idiocy; button outside a form for scripttard bullshit, content before the first heading, classes that could be confused with psuedostates, and of course the garbage presentational "let's throw classes at EVERYTHING" bull that results in garbage like this: <div class="navbar navbar-inverse navbar-fixed-top" role="navigation"> Code (markup): If you don't know what's wrong with that, do the world a huge favor and back the **** away from the keyboard and don't come back until you grasp how to use HTML and CSS properly. IE conditionals for nothing, classes for nothing, DIV for nothing, goofy inaccessible scripttard bull, and 228k (almost twice my upper limit for a content-less template) before they've even applied actual STYLE to the site? Hardly a shock people now sleaze out these multi-megabyte monstrosities built from dozens or even hundreds of files that take half a minute to download over FIBER. Developers are dumber for things like bootstrap even existing; the only thing they speed up is the constantly growing ignorance and ineptitude. Though again, I say if you can't bring a page, not counting content images/video/audio, in at 144k or less in 16 files or less for HTML+CSS+SCRIPTS+presentational images, with an ideal size being HALF THAT, you probably have zero business building websites in the first place.