3 ms·

eh, I'll take the bait. Whether you're using 960gs or whatever it may be, you still need to be considerate of position and "write css for layout". If you find

eh, I'll take the bait. Whether you're using 960gs or whatever it may be, you still need to be considerate of position and "write css for layout". If you find yourself always using grid layouts, not just as guides but as the way to lay out everything, then you will soon find yourself caged inside that grid.

weego 16y ago
This is exactly it. The move away from tables had the side benefit of being able to move away from row and column thinking (there will always be an underlying grid in good design, but breaking it is where a good designer really adds value). If you don't stick with the grid the framework provides you are just writing custom CSS anyway, at which point you probably wonder why you have another CSS file with lots of code that you are only using 50% of the time and that comes with it's own maintenance issues that you don't need. I would also argue that from a maintanence point of view, semantically smart class and id names make it much easier to work with compared with a page full of "r3 w50 h10" type attribute properties. To stick my flag to the mask, I hate CSS "frameworks" with something of a mild passion. CSS is too domain (domain in this sense I guess is a synonym for project) specific and abstract to benefit from a framework, you are much better keeping it lean and tidy and owning every line you write, because CSS is the kind of language where you should justify every line to yourself.
- syaz1 16y ago
  Good points. However I have to say I love frameworks (compass?) that handle all the cross-browser / ie6 stuff for me. If that is not reason enough to use CSS frameworks, I don't know what is.
  - SkyMarshal 16y ago
    Same. I've recently been experimenting with several - Less Framework, Less.js, Compass, and Flawless.css. html5boilerplate is also nice for starting templates. Bypassing those niggling pita xbrowser/ie6 issues with just a 'git clone' is clutch.

weego 16y ago

This is exactly it. The move away from tables had the side benefit of being able to move away from row and column thinking (there will always be an underlying grid in good design, but breaking it is where a good designer really adds value). If you don't stick with the grid the framework provides you are just writing custom CSS anyway, at which point you probably wonder why you have another CSS file with lots of code that you are only using 50% of the time and that comes with it's own maintenance issues that you don't need. I would also argue that from a maintanence point of view, semantically smart class and id names make it much easier to work with compared with a page full of "r3 w50 h10" type attribute properties. To stick my flag to the mask, I hate CSS "frameworks" with something of a mild passion. CSS is too domain (domain in this sense I guess is a synonym for project) specific and abstract to benefit from a framework, you are much better keeping it lean and tidy and owning every line you write, because CSS is the kind of language where you should justify every line to yourself.

syaz1 16y ago
Good points. However I have to say I love frameworks (compass?) that handle all the cross-browser / ie6 stuff for me. If that is not reason enough to use CSS frameworks, I don't know what is.
- SkyMarshal 16y ago
  Same. I've recently been experimenting with several - Less Framework, Less.js, Compass, and Flawless.css. html5boilerplate is also nice for starting templates. Bypassing those niggling pita xbrowser/ie6 issues with just a 'git clone' is clutch.