6 ms·

I'd love for someone smarter than me to compare Zurb Foundation and this. It seems like Twitter has a few except things (pill-button callouts, etc), but Foundat

I'd love for someone smarter than me to compare Zurb Foundation and this. It seems like Twitter has a few except things (pill-button callouts, etc), but Foundation seems VERY responsive-focused whereas Twitter Bootstrap seems to have added responsiveness in.

dfischer 15y ago
I've used both. I found Zurb to be lacking in components related to Bootstrap. Bootstrap is definitely more featured.
- nchuhoai 15y ago
  I'm sure we know by now that more features doesn't better. Depends on the use case
  - hopeless 15y ago
    I think the clue is in the names: Zurb Foundation would be a good place to start building your site on top of; Twitter Bootstrap is perfect for quickly getting things done. Personally, I used TB because I needed something that looked ok but without expending much effort
    - nchuhoai 15y ago
      Foundation does just the same for getting things done ...
phatbyte 15y ago
First thing that pops up to me it's how beautiful and well designed the TB is when compared to Zurb. In terms of implementation I've only used TB, and it was simple, not very intrusive.
- nchuhoai 15y ago
  Conversely, people could attest the same thing for Zurb. I have used both and I like Foundation a lot better. Haven't tried tb 2.0 yet which apparently has the responsive grid which is the main feature of foundation
chetan51 15y ago
I always thought Foundation's grid system was way better. It's responsive and infinitely nestable (and I like the naming scheme better). But Bootstrap 2.0 might change all that.
rgrieselhuber 15y ago
We looked closely at both and, while Bootstrap has far more features / UI elements, the attention to detail in building responsive pages is better in Foundation, IMO. The elements are nice to have in Bootstrap but we are building our own elements on Foundation's solid platform and feel better about it over the long term.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  My understanding is that responsive layouts is a big part of the 2.0 of Twitter Bootstrap. Did you evaluate it or the 1.0 version?
  - rgrieselhuber 15y ago
    It must have been the 1.0 version. I'll give it another look.
danneu 15y ago
I found that Twitter Bootstrap has better looking defaults after using a morning caffeine burst to drop Zurb Foundation into my app and see the difference. For example, things scaled much nicer on Bootstrap when I started Ctrl-MouseWheeling the text size. That said, I hope Bootstrap 2.0 nails responsive design. I think we should be checking our progress on mobile devices as we develop, not drop in a mobile solution at the end and hope it works. Responsive design is the hard part whereas look-and-feel CSS is more trivial to drop in.
Zepplock 15y ago
I have tried both Twitter 1.x and Zurb with Ruby on Rails and I found Zurb to be easier to use and have a better structure internal structure, easier to customize, etc

dfischer 15y ago

I've used both. I found Zurb to be lacking in components related to Bootstrap. Bootstrap is definitely more featured.

nchuhoai 15y ago
I'm sure we know by now that more features doesn't better. Depends on the use case
- hopeless 15y ago
  I think the clue is in the names: Zurb Foundation would be a good place to start building your site on top of; Twitter Bootstrap is perfect for quickly getting things done. Personally, I used TB because I needed something that looked ok but without expending much effort
  - nchuhoai 15y ago
    Foundation does just the same for getting things done ...

phatbyte 15y ago

First thing that pops up to me it's how beautiful and well designed the TB is when compared to Zurb. In terms of implementation I've only used TB, and it was simple, not very intrusive.

nchuhoai 15y ago
Conversely, people could attest the same thing for Zurb. I have used both and I like Foundation a lot better. Haven't tried tb 2.0 yet which apparently has the responsive grid which is the main feature of foundation

chetan51 15y ago

I always thought Foundation's grid system was way better. It's responsive and infinitely nestable (and I like the naming scheme better). But Bootstrap 2.0 might change all that.

rgrieselhuber 15y ago

We looked closely at both and, while Bootstrap has far more features / UI elements, the attention to detail in building responsive pages is better in Foundation, IMO. The elements are nice to have in Bootstrap but we are building our own elements on Foundation's solid platform and feel better about it over the long term.

drivebyacct2 15y ago
My understanding is that responsive layouts is a big part of the 2.0 of Twitter Bootstrap. Did you evaluate it or the 1.0 version?
- rgrieselhuber 15y ago
  It must have been the 1.0 version. I'll give it another look.

danneu 15y ago

I found that Twitter Bootstrap has better looking defaults after using a morning caffeine burst to drop Zurb Foundation into my app and see the difference. For example, things scaled much nicer on Bootstrap when I started Ctrl-MouseWheeling the text size. That said, I hope Bootstrap 2.0 nails responsive design. I think we should be checking our progress on mobile devices as we develop, not drop in a mobile solution at the end and hope it works. Responsive design is the hard part whereas look-and-feel CSS is more trivial to drop in.

Zepplock 15y ago

I have tried both Twitter 1.x and Zurb with Ruby on Rails and I found Zurb to be easier to use and have a better structure internal structure, easier to customize, etc