Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter Bootstrap 2.0 pre-release demo

bootstrap.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: Twitter Bootstrap 2.0 pre-release demo

#42

Post by dminor »

darylteo wrote: post #31
dminor wrote: post #19

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…

Couldn't this be changed in the 'less' files?

Those are the files I'm referring to - if you look in navbar.less for example, you'll see lots of

  color: @white;
in the various navbar rules. It would be great if there was a single variable:

  @navbarTextColor: @white;
and then all the rules could include:

  color: @navbarTextColor;
which is essentially what I've ended up doing.

Re: Twitter Bootstrap 2.0 pre-release demo

#46

Post by rgrieselhuber »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #40
rgrieselhuber wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

It must have been the 1.0 version. I'll give it another look.

Re: Twitter Bootstrap 2.0 pre-release demo

#47

Post by danneu »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #6

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.

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.

Re: Twitter Bootstrap 2.0 pre-release demo

#48

Post by loucal »

_pius wrote: post #8

I built https://www.becouplydates.com/ on the 2.0-wip branch. We've been very pleased with it.

I know 2.0 isn't finished yet but I checked out the progress on the 2.0-wip branch yesterday and the 'responsive' part of it is definitely not polished yet. In contrast I have played with skeleton and it resizes much better out of the box. For example, when you start to resize that page check out the footer text and the way you lose text behind the video. I also don't like how when things go wrong instead of having to scroll horizontally it cuts off content. (ideally everything would resize perfectly, but I think cutting off information is the last thing we want)

Re: Twitter Bootstrap 2.0 pre-release demo

#49

Post by sunchild »

davej wrote: post #29

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.

I agree. If you can use SASS or LESS, it makes namespacing Bootstrap really easy, though.
Post reply on HN