31–40 of 63 posts
Glad to see there are some variables for setting things like the navbar colors - I just started adapting a site to the 1.4 version and had to start out by changing all of the rules individually so I could implement a different color scheme. Edit: Actually, I take it back as there are still hardcoded colors and the assumption that you are using white as the text. Would be nice if it was based off a few variables inste…
It bugs the hell out of me that they apply styling to vanilla tables. I wish they'd namespace it with a class because it messes up things like datepickers on JQuery-UI.
It bugs the hell out of me that they apply styling to vanilla tables. I wish they'd namespace it with a class because it messes up things like datepickers on JQuery-UI.
Couldn't the same argument be applied to JQuery UI then?
That doesn't, however, mean they don't inherit from the style of the base element. Which they will, no matter how they're classed or ID'd, if the base elements have been styled in CSS.
It bugs the hell out of me that they apply styling to vanilla tables. I wish they'd namespace it with a class because it messes up things like datepickers on JQuery-UI.
Couldn't the same argument be applied to JQuery UI then?
The link just redirects to the 1.4.0 version of bootstrap.
It bugs the hell out of me that they apply styling to vanilla tables. I wish they'd namespace it with a class because it messes up things like datepickers on JQuery-UI.
* styling of default elements (like table) interferes with other styles
* inconsistent use of variables
* encouraging users to define columns with html classes (span4, offset6) instead of using less to apply the rule to the html.
* completely incompatible with JQuery UI (they had an open bug about it with some workarounds)
In the end, I ended up just picking a few good ideas out of it. It looks great and it's probably ok for a certain class of sites but be aware of the limitations as well.
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.
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.
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.
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.