SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 68
  1. #26
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    West Midlands, UK
    Posts
    173
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    VG either way i will not use them, im experienced enough with CSS, i dont need to use them.

    And yes i've put together my own template/framework, and when i said i hate frameworks, i ment the stuff your seeing now, the OTT YUI one for example. The difference with my template is its my hard work and experience that has created it, anyone can use the YUI ones and have no idea what going on.

    I pride my work, i want potential customers to pride my work, not to see that ive just grabbed a css framework and worked around it and added un-needed markup into the document. All im saying is i wouldnt want anything like that in my source code, to see im using/copied from YUI or any other framework for that matter.

    If people want to use it, let them carry on, i doubt any experienced web devel would use them. You might aswell race around the internet and copy and paste scripts from trusted sources, you will save yourself even more time.

    Money is important, but pride is even more important to some. It seems many jump aboard the band wagon.

  2. #27
    whagwan? silver trophybronze trophy akritic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    While I see the possible benefits, I prefer at present to do the CSS markup myself, and let's be honest this is mainly (from what I can observe) about layout. And, it's not that difficult, neither is learning the other aspects such as typography etc, though I do see a market for a decent book on this overall area. Some in depth consideration and what-not. Though it seemed like an inscaleable mountain when I first started, it rather much relies on ingenutity with CSS, and probably you will get things wrong and cause yourself problems, but you have to learn, so as many people have said this type of framework is only 'useful' to a certain extent.

  3. #28
    SitePoint Wizard gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy dc dalton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Right behind you, watching, always watching.
    Posts
    5,431
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dotDan View Post
    Why so? I've found that it takes a lot less work to snap code into a framework, rather than including classes left and right.
    Because MOST frameworks are nothing more than bloated code that 'supposedly' helps people code (I usually find it helps lazy people write exceptionally bad code) but in reality it is beating the server half to death.

    And unlike the controllers I build (yes I saw your comment Vinnie) these things fly in the face of good coding practices 99.9% of the time.

    I just don't see the need for this thing, I mean seriously I have yet to find a CSS layout I can't get working properly in under 2 hours, and that includes the HTML code!

    Off Topic:

    BTW, Vinnie ... if you see this. I am editing what will be my LAST Java job EVER!

  4. #29
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael-Martin View Post
    I'll say it again; I just don't think it's all that fair that this guy is getting so much more buzz than the actual authors, just because he put them all together. What's so wrong about that?
    The real "win" with technology is not coming up with a new way of doing things; it's in making that new way of doing things approachable and usable to the target audience. You see it all the time: Microsoft did it with Windows, Apple did it with the iPod, and this guy's trying to do it with Blueprint.

    An example: I bet you don't know the name of the guy who invented the TV, but I'm sure you've heard of Sony.
    Quote Originally Posted by dc dalton View Post
    Off Topic:

    BTW, Vinnie ... if you see this. I am editing what will be my LAST Java job EVER!
    Off Topic:

    what are you moving to then?

  5. #30
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy
    beley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    LaGrange, Georgia
    Posts
    6,117
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm pretty proficient with CSS, and actually enjoy slicing up PSD's and coding sites... maybe I'm weird like that.

    The only frameworks I use are for JavaScript (I use Prototype and Scriptaculous) because I loathe writing JS.

  6. #31
    SitePoint Wizard gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy dc dalton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Right behind you, watching, always watching.
    Posts
    5,431
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by vgarcia View Post
    Off Topic:

    what are you moving to then?
    Off Topic:

    yeah I wish! freaking housing market is dead so we're stuck here AGAIN!

  7. #32
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    82
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Frameworks are all well and good, and I think someone mentioned this already, but when you're working with code that should be reduced to save download time, I'm not sure a framework will work well. It's a lot of extra stuff to download for the user, and will make loading times slower. (Yes, one can argue server-side frameworks slow page loads down too, but at least you have control over that, ie., server upgrades.) Also, the actual development time saved when using a server-side framework for something like PHP can't really be compared to development time saved when working with something like CSS. The complexity of an entire application is really vastly greater than building a few stylesheets.

  8. #33
    SitePoint Evangelist Karpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    445
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think what some people are trying to say is that they don't mind using frameworks of sorts that they themselves have developed, as they know exactly how it works and exactly how to start plugging new code into it, to hit the ground running.

    External frameworks have the added work of trying to understand what they're doing, learning to work with them, adapting them when they don't quite work the way you want, taking out all the bits you know you'll never use, etc. I don't like working with external frameworks, but I'm more than happy to sit and develop my own.

    Plus, it reinforces my understanding of a topic, which I think is good for me.

    Though, for work I usually get the whole 'turn a PSD into a webpage' thing again.

  9. #34
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just downloaded it and I am going to try it on a new project that I have. I'll post my results when I'm done.

  10. #35
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    982
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I wouldn't touch it. The closest I'd get to using a framework would be using a CSS reset sheet, but I think that would even take some getting used to. If you work with enough CSS, all of the little "quirks" start to become second nature and its really just the occasional unique requirement of a design that takes some tweaking to get cross browser compatible.
    MySQL v5.1.58
    PHP v5.3.6

  11. #36
    $books++ == true matsko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    795
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I disagree.

    After getting acquainted with the mootools framework (I know it's JavaScript and not CSS) my thoughts on frameworks have drastically changed. At first I just wanted to code everything myself, but after switching to a framework I noticed my development skills seriously improved.

    Who knows, maybe a CSS framework is just what I need to get the browser compatibility working to the best it can.

    The only kind of framework I would avoid would be a PHP framework -- Too much inefficient code (since frameworks are designed for almost everything).
    Last edited by matsko; Aug 10, 2007 at 17:18.
    I can't believe I ate the whole thing

  12. #37
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    982
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Maybe you're right. Give this project time to mature and I may revisit it. I do love using jQuery as my Javascript framework.
    MySQL v5.1.58
    PHP v5.3.6

  13. #38
    SitePoint Wizard gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy dc dalton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Right behind you, watching, always watching.
    Posts
    5,431
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You know, a friend of mine made a good point when I showed him this mess today (sorry to me it's a mess)

    He said (and I quote) "CSS IS a framework to present content on the internet, so now we need a framework to use a framework?" Good point from SMART guy

  14. #39
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    117
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I haven't had a good look at Blueprint, but it seems to have a few things in common with the css framework Mike Stenhouse wrote about a couple of years ago, which I quite like using.

  15. #40
    Designer
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    590
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's just for beginners really.

    Anyone with half-decent experience in CSS can already write their own framework (I already have two, one for typography, and one for menus, and I'm not exactly a Paul O'B CSS genius).

    To have to study somebody else's CSS to write your own CSS seems pretty stupid to me.

    Only frameworks I use that aren't mine are JavaScript ones. Although you SHOULD know how to use JS before using JS frameworks, but it does help speed up development time.

  16. #41
    padawan silver trophybronze trophy markbrown4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    4,117
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Some interesting responses in this thread. I guess people are right in saying that CSS is simple enough of a language that no framework is necessary. Get's the thumbs down from me also after a review.

  17. #42
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm really interested in it. I was going to use it for one of the projects I'm working on, but we ended up taking a different option for business reasons.

    Also, I HATE hearing people complain about having 5 extra connections made. If your site is big enough for that to be a problem, then you should already have css aggregation/preprocessing in place, or a team of developers that can go ahead and write it for you.

  18. #43
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    672
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't think css is suited very well for a framework.. also not really necessary you can write css pretty fast.
    Go visit my site :-D you know you want to ;-)
    www.mech7.net

  19. #44
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy DaveWoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Derbyshire - UK
    Posts
    2,651
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by matsko View Post
    The only kind of framework I would avoid would be a PHP framework -- Too much inefficient code (since frameworks are designed for almost everything).
    I think that pretty much sums up my thoughts about using a CSS framework. CSS isn't that hard to understand so I'd much rather code what I need than be left with 70-80% of a CSS file that isn't serving any purpose.

  20. #45
    SitePoint Zealot oivaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    138
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the most important topic this "framework" touches is having a default baseline and grid.

    Of course, not everybody likes or uses those concepts, I just happen to think they should be taken into consideration with every design if possible.

    Btw, if you already developed your own CSS "framework", do you use these concepts/techniques?

    It's a personal opinion, but I think layouts made with a baseline and a grid in mind look way better!

  21. #46
    Designer
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    590
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by oivaf View Post
    Btw, if you already developed your own CSS "framework", do you use these concepts/techniques?

    It's a personal opinion, but I think layouts made with a baseline and a grid in mind look way better!
    No, not exactly. At least, not all the time.

    Grids and baselines are perfect for CSS sites that are somewhat akin to newspapers, or the usual "logo - menu - banner - content - footer" de facto CSS template standard.

    But the real point some of us are trying to make here is: why study something to do something, which you can do anyway once you've read up on CSS?

    Honestly, it actually looks like a step back. It -ALMOST- reminds me of tables all over again.

  22. #47
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Tyssen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD
    Posts
    4,067
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've only had a quick look at it and decided I wouldn't use it. Maybe I need to take more time to explore it in greater depth because it's certainly getting some big wraps on some of the web design blogs I read. I can't see why something that everyone in this thread is writing off as being for newbs only would be getting so much attention if there wasn't something more to it.

  23. #48
    SitePoint Zealot oivaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    138
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by XLCowBoy View Post
    But the real point some of us are trying to make here is: why study something to do something, which you can do anyway once you've read up on CSS?
    This depends on the need to implement a layout with a baseline/grid. In reality, if you have already read up on CSS, you don't need to study this. So if you need/want to layout with a baseline, it's simple and nobody is forced to take everything of it, just what you need. It's only CSS.

    Quote Originally Posted by XLCowBoy View Post
    Honestly, it actually looks like a step back. It -ALMOST- reminds me of tables all over again.
    In my particular case, when coding CSS I always setup containers according to the different areas of a webpage. So you can have the standard: header, content, footer. Or something more complicated like: sidebar, login-form, ad-content, etc.

    Practically, I always use a div with an id or a class name for those. The only difference in using this framework would be that instead of using a meaningful name, I would be using a class name like "span-6" to setup the grid (width, padding, margin). I don't see how this could remind me of tables.

    In closing, I think it's just another choice. So, take it or leave it.
    Last edited by oivaf; Aug 12, 2007 at 22:15. Reason: Made some sentences more clear.

  24. #49
    Designer
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    590
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by oivaf View Post
    This depends on the need to implement a layout with a baseline/grid. In reality, if you have already read up on CSS, you don't need to study this. So if you need/want to layout with a baseline, it's simple and nobody is forced to take everything of it, just what you need. It's only CSS.

    In my particular case, when coding CSS I always setup containers according to the different areas of a webpage. So you can have the standard: header, content, footer. Or something more complicated like: sidebar, login-form, ad-content, etc.

    Practically, I always use a div with an id or a class name for those. The only difference in using this framework would be that instead of using a meaningful name, I would be using a class name like "span-6" to setup the grid (width, padding, margin). I don't see how this could remind me of tables.

    In closing, I think it's just another choice. So, take it or leave it.
    Quite true. As a choice, I won't knock it. As you said, it's a take it or leave it option.

  25. #50
    SitePoint Wizard Wolf_22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,714
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm a small fish in an ocean here, but reading some of these replies about this "CSS Framework" has sparked me to leave my 2 cents...

    I have little experience compared to some of you who float around here skulking in these forum shadows, but having thought about all the effort I put into my own experience with this crap, I must say that a CSS framework to me is a bloody joke. I mean, it's an intriguing idea in the sense that it conveys possibilities for what CSS might possibly be able to do in the future, but for now: forget it.

    - You can write CSS fast...
    - Frameworks bring too much overhead...
    - CSS IS a framework...
    - It's for people just now being exposed to CSS...

    Take your pick man. Personally, I think this CSS Blueprint thing is a pet-project or hobby that a few computer nerds are doing each Wednesday after school, but I (like Paul and a few others have said) DEFINITELY give them kudos for their ideas. It's ideas like this that pave the way to new, more advanced and amazing breakthroughs in technology.

    I say two thumbs down on the product, but two thumbs (and two "big toes") up for their effort and ideas. It's nice to see people constantly refining and changing it up.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •