dark_tranquility — 2009-03-07T13:11:10-05:00 — #1
Anyone checked this?
I am not a fan of css frameworks in general! Anyone sees interesting potential?
ryanreese — 2009-03-07T13:43:08-05:00 — #2
Dang that looks so neat. It will be like the netbeans for CSS (netbeans is a program where you actually DESIGN java swing (visual stuff) instead of hand-coding it.) I think it will help a lot of new people out but more experienced people won't need to use it. Well, the amount of people using it will also include experienced people-it will allow them to get done work faster.
If you want to get technical everything in CSS IS OO
alexdawson — 2009-03-07T14:03:50-05:00 — #3
Ryan, This topic reminds me of that earlier discussion we had where you asked about me marking up all the HTML elements by default, this is part of the reason why I do it. It provides consistency and a framework of skinned elements which I can reuse, and if individual pages need slight tweaks, I can offer an id or class to style outside the skinned boundaries, it helps compress the code down and reduce bulky CSS files.
ryanreese — 2009-03-07T14:06:03-05:00 — #4
I personally have never used a framework as I have always just used notepad. Using a framework will indeed provide a more....interesting time indeed.
blake_tallos — 2009-03-07T15:51:44-05:00 — #5
I like this. Good link DT. I say forget the Framework and use there ideas to implement into your CSS work. Lawl'z.
alexdawson — 2009-03-07T16:54:46-05:00 — #6
kohoutek — 2009-03-07T17:00:30-05:00 — #7
I'm not a fan of CSS frameworks either. I admit I've never used one, but that is because each of the frameworks I've looked at, I wondered why it had to be so overly complex and non-descriptive in terms of naming conventions. I'm sure they're good though, just not for me.
DT, have you looked at the CSS of the author's website? While I'm convinced this is well thought out and certainly a labor of love, it looks like overkill to me. I think I'd have to kill myself if - after a year or two - I ever wanted to change something. I prefer it somewhat simpler, I guess.
dan_schulz — 2009-03-07T19:06:10-05:00 — #8
The use of non-semantic class and ID values really irks me, as does the lack of absolute structure and use of hacks as well. Though on the surface this looks a lot like the CSS framework I've been developing, this uses far more code and can actually limit designs rather than enhance or empower their individuality/modification.
black_max — 2009-03-07T20:53:18-05:00 — #9
Dan, you are gonna share your framework with us peons when you're done, right?
dan_schulz — 2009-03-07T21:09:58-05:00 — #10
Yes. Right here on SitePoint, in fact. (If you look hard enough, there are already several pieces of it floating around the forums.)
dark_tranquility — 2009-03-08T08:04:05-04:00 — #11
I totally agree Maleika!
Yep! I posted this here to see if anyone finds any interesting potential I didn't see! it is probably well thought and designed but it certainly has obvious weaknesses and limits like the ones you listed Dan!
And yeah!! You must share with us your CSS framework Dan!
sk89q — 2009-03-08T12:00:15-04:00 — #12
I saw this a few days ago. I don't really see much out of it except as a bunch of "standard" class names.
I already build my CSS files to reduce code duplication as much as possible by using generic class names. Because I make stylesheets for different medias (screen, print, etc.), this only sounds obvious and natural. Plus, it's how I roll anyway (I always feel very dirty if I have to write layout CSS that only can only be used for one thing on the site.)
Plus, when I create a design, I don't think "hmm... what existing code can I put in X and Y." I pop open Photoshop and make the graphics work.
alex — 2009-03-08T15:17:25-04:00 — #13
I must agree with most of you, I've never used a framework because they always seemed too complex for my needs. In the end, I usually start with an extremely simple reset and go from there with no other true consistencies. I should learn some more of the ideas in these frameworks for implementation in my own work, though, as mentioned.
skunkbad — 2009-03-08T16:39:31-04:00 — #14
I kinda believe that every designer makes their own framework. If you look at my websites, you would see similarities in the naming conventions for ids and classes. I hand code, and to me using somebody elses code just limits the design process, or at best makes it less efficient.
vanishdesign — 2009-03-08T18:33:12-04:00 — #15
Ok, what is this and how do I get to it?
I've seen the presentation before and liked the concept, but ten points against the designer for not putting a big freaking download button somewhere on there or at least just linking up the instructions to the relevant files.
dvduval — 2009-03-08T18:39:24-04:00 — #16
Without doubt this approach will become increasingly important over time as the need to manage large networks continues to increase. And of course, this method allows for faster deployment.
soulscratch — 2009-03-08T18:40:14-04:00 — #17
This is hosted on github, (git is a revisioning system like cvs, mercurial or svn )... this isn't a normal site and anyone who's using git would know how to download the files.
There is a download tab @ http://github.com/stubbornella/oocss/downloads# so you can download it if you aren't familiar with git.
vanishdesign — 2009-03-08T18:49:00-04:00 — #18
Thanks. Was a bit thrown by Downloads (0)
brandonk — 2009-03-09T09:52:18-04:00 — #19
Gits a bit odd, but silly fast once you get the basics
xlcowboy — 2009-03-09T12:43:26-04:00 — #20
CSS is too simple to require a framework. All it needs is a nice FAQ (which Sitepoint already has).
Honestly, the sad truth is that if you can't effectively use CSS on its own, a framework isn't going to help you.
next page →