3 ms·
They do not. CSS is for presentation, and presentation usually differs from site to site. That means that you either have to tweak a lot, in which case using fr
by rimantas 18y ago
They do not.
CSS is for presentation, and presentation usually differs from site to site. That means that you either have to tweak a lot, in which case using framework does not make much sense, or you have a lot of unused code in your CSS which makes the "maintainability" point moot.
In my view CSS frameworks are the crutch for CSS challenged (as WYSIWYG HTML editors are for code challenged) and should be avoided.
I also have no idea how the word "Semantically" made its way to the title. So far from I have seen CSS frameworks add very little to the semantics, take more away, and are very likely to induce an acute case of clssitis to you HTML code. Not to mention "CSS reset" which I think was stupid idea from the very beginning.
- lsb 18y agoFrameworks abstract core functionality. How much innovation do you need in making a 2-column layout?
- Semiapies 18y agoThis is true; not every little catalog site is cutting-edge design. (From experience, a lot of small companies certainly won't pay for the cutting edge.)
- rimantas 18y agoWho talks about cutting edge? The simpler you design is, the more overhead you get from using a framework.
- Semiapies 18y agoYou'll have to explain what you mean by "overhead" in this context. Time to build? Bandwidth? If the former, certainly wrong. If the latter, whether it's meaningful overhead depends on the framework. Also, unpack "simple".
- rimantas 18y agoI am not talking about innovation. I am just saying that you dont need a framework for two column layout.