4 ms·

CSS grids are trivial to write. They consist of three major declaration types: .row { width: ?px; clear: left; } .col-1, .col-2.... { margin: ?px; float: lef

CSS grids are trivial to write. They consist of three major declaration types: .row { width: ?px; clear: left; } .col-1, .col-2.... { margin: ?px; float: left } .col-1 { width: ?px; } .col-2 { width: ?px; } Why do I bring this up? Because it is so simple to write these, it almost never makes sense to use a framework. If I ever want a grid for a particular project, I write it custom with a little help from excel. This allows me to build mini-grid frameworks for whatever container width I need. This way I don't abandon separation of content from presentation across a whole site -- just on a particular page.

slig 16y ago
Why reinvent the wheel when you can use one known framework(e.g. blueprint) than will be instantly recognized by other designers?
- catshirt 16y ago
  Firstly, the likelihood alone that any given CSS designer who follows up on your project actually understands the framework is not high. These frameworks make a very small subset of CSS people write. Certainly not a large enough subset for you to make that assumption by any means. Secondly, this is a poor analogy because we're talking about 3 CSS classes- by no means a "wheel". I am curious as to what circumstances you would really save any measurable time using a CSS framework.
- points 16y ago
  Why reinvent <table> ?
  - wwortiz 16y ago
    You shouldn't, table is not an element that should be banned from the web it is actually extremely useful. The problem with table is when you use it for layout it creates some unwieldy markup that it is better to just use css. Some designers however seem to use divs for tables and it just looks silly and ends up being overly complicated.
JJMalina 16y ago
CSS frameworks are especially useful when you're using Sass & Compass (compass-style.org) because you can completely bypass having to add all these ugly and tedious class names to your HTML. Instead you can make a few mixins out of the framework's code and stick them right into your css. Your HTML & CSS will be semantically cleaner and easier to maintain if you want to make changes in the future.
- Semiapies 16y ago
  Also good with Less (http://lesscss.org http://lesscss.org) for pretty much the same reasons.
ssmoot 16y ago
I really don't get why people feel the need to reinvent row/column structures when there's a more reliable, better option built into every browser for the past decade. "Tables are for tabular data" just strikes me as ego, and while I've seen a ton of flaky work-arounds with DIVs, I've rarely seen one that worked well and didn't force needless compromises (extra white-space for dynamic content to ensure you aren't bitten by overflow issues or have to clip content to fit the design). There's a tool that does the job. It works in every browser that's ever mattered. It does it most simply with the least side-effects. It uses about the same amount of "non semantic" markup (.row and .col are separating presentation/layout? That's a weird definition of the phrase). It's reliable, it's predictable, it doesn't come with side-effects (let me just update my global .row class here and, d'oh, I've broken half the site because I focused on minimizing styles rather than coding defensively keeping likely client requests for tweaks in mind). Build a whole site out of tables? No thanks. Use tables for dynamic content of variable height that needs to be maintained in rows and columns? To do anything else doesn't serve the interests of the client or your own business. Redeveloping tables with divs and .row/.col classes just to avoid using an element called "table". One of my greatest frustrations with designers. It's not fun to have to go in and fix people's shoddy work they spent days not getting right just because they couldn't put the business ahead of their ego. If you really must avoid tables for whatever reason, lists are almost always a better choice. I do agree with the spirit of this comment though. CSS Frameworks are the Microsoft Frontpage of modern web design.

slig 16y ago

Why reinvent the wheel when you can use one known framework(e.g. blueprint) than will be instantly recognized by other designers?

catshirt 16y ago
Firstly, the likelihood alone that any given CSS designer who follows up on your project actually understands the framework is not high. These frameworks make a very small subset of CSS people write. Certainly not a large enough subset for you to make that assumption by any means. Secondly, this is a poor analogy because we're talking about 3 CSS classes- by no means a "wheel". I am curious as to what circumstances you would really save any measurable time using a CSS framework.
points 16y ago
Why reinvent <table> ?
- wwortiz 16y ago
  You shouldn't, table is not an element that should be banned from the web it is actually extremely useful. The problem with table is when you use it for layout it creates some unwieldy markup that it is better to just use css. Some designers however seem to use divs for tables and it just looks silly and ends up being overly complicated.

JJMalina 16y ago

CSS frameworks are especially useful when you're using Sass & Compass (compass-style.org) because you can completely bypass having to add all these ugly and tedious class names to your HTML. Instead you can make a few mixins out of the framework's code and stick them right into your css. Your HTML & CSS will be semantically cleaner and easier to maintain if you want to make changes in the future.

Semiapies 16y ago
Also good with Less (http://lesscss.org http://lesscss.org) for pretty much the same reasons.

ssmoot 16y ago

I really don't get why people feel the need to reinvent row/column structures when there's a more reliable, better option built into every browser for the past decade. "Tables are for tabular data" just strikes me as ego, and while I've seen a ton of flaky work-arounds with DIVs, I've rarely seen one that worked well and didn't force needless compromises (extra white-space for dynamic content to ensure you aren't bitten by overflow issues or have to clip content to fit the design). There's a tool that does the job. It works in every browser that's ever mattered. It does it most simply with the least side-effects. It uses about the same amount of "non semantic" markup (.row and .col are separating presentation/layout? That's a weird definition of the phrase). It's reliable, it's predictable, it doesn't come with side-effects (let me just update my global .row class here and, d'oh, I've broken half the site because I focused on minimizing styles rather than coding defensively keeping likely client requests for tweaks in mind). Build a whole site out of tables? No thanks. Use tables for dynamic content of variable height that needs to be maintained in rows and columns? To do anything else doesn't serve the interests of the client or your own business. Redeveloping tables with divs and .row/.col classes just to avoid using an element called "table". One of my greatest frustrations with designers. It's not fun to have to go in and fix people's shoddy work they spent days not getting right just because they couldn't put the business ahead of their ego. If you really must avoid tables for whatever reason, lists are almost always a better choice. I do agree with the spirit of this comment though. CSS Frameworks are the Microsoft Frontpage of modern web design.