Bootstrap's fluid grid implementation is weak and fails when you want to use their responsive styles. For some reason they decided it'd be a good idea to change fluid column widths based on media types, including screens >1200px. This means you end up with oddly resizing columns, especially on desktops. This is completely pointless for fluid grids since you should be modifying the container size and not the column size. It seems like they implemented fluid columns as if they're fixed width.
Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap
21–30 of 51 posts
Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap
#22a lot of people here praise bootstrap for giving more out of the box. frankly I'd rather the framework not decide for me about the look and feel, and IMHO it's easier to customize Zurb Foundation which is a bit more modest about the default looks, than get rid of that 'twitterific' crap Bootstrap gives out of the box. and sass > less (yeah I know there are ports). I went with Zurb. too bad these frameworks don't respect semantic html much.
Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap
#23My team compared Bootstrap, Foundation, and Skeleton in detail: http://responsive.vermilion.com/compare.php We built the same layout (a real client project) in each framework and compared notes. That process really helped us understand the differences.
What was your conclusion? (Looking at the source code of the page, foundation?)
Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap
#24My team compared Bootstrap, Foundation, and Skeleton in detail: http://responsive.vermilion.com/compare.php We built the same layout (a real client project) in each framework and compared notes. That process really helped us understand the differences.
What was your conclusion? (Looking at the source code of the page, foundation?)
A few conclusions:
* Foundation has the best responsive grid support
* Bootstrap is the most expansive UI. For internal tools, that's great. For client sites, we end up fighting to override Bootstrap.
* Skeleton is really light. If you're prototyping with Skeleton, you'll probably need to pair it with jQuery UI or something similar.
FWIW, we're using both Bootstrap and Foundation for current projects.
Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap
#25Has anyone got a decent solution for combining Foundation and RequireJS?
Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap
#26+1 for Foundation for the SASS and excellent responsive design.
Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap
#27I'd have to go with Bootstrap because it just seems to offer more. I extensively use their buttons, warning styles, etc. and it's just better to have those already in the framework just in case. Also on the Foundation website I can't seem to find examples of their typography, buttons and other UI elements.
You didn't try very hard: http://foundation.zurb.com/docs
Actually I'll agree the docs are awkwardly placed on the landing page. They should be front and center. Bootstrap also does do more. Though that's good or bad depending on your point of view.
Personally I would lean to bootstrap if I wanted everything and the kitchen sink and didn't plan on modifying much about it. For more serious work Foundation provides just that, a good foundation for building on top of. It's far less full featured but much easier to extend and modify (imo).
Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap
#28This was an easy decision for me a while back. As a non-designer, Bootstrap just gives me way more stuff out of the box. I wouldn't know where to start without it. Even if you use all of Foundation (2)'s add-ons, it still doesn't even compare with core Bootstrap, not counting Bootstrap's add-ons. With bootstrap's popularity, it's really easy to find an article explaining how to integrate it with your framework of cho…
As a non-designer that's not really an issue for me. There are so many cheap or FOSS design templates, snippets, icons, etc available these days that it's not a huge problem to put together a package of them for Foundation.
I use Bootstrap when
1. the default Bootstrap theme or a third party theme are sufficient
2. I don't need Foundation's better grid system
3. I'm using something other than Ruby (which for me is most of the time)
Foundation for:
1. There's a specific problem that their better grid system solves. I haven't come across this yet, but am aware of it for when/if I do.
2. Client wants a highly customized Ruby-based site with no hint of the Bootstrap look
As someone mentioned above, you can use Foundation and borrow design and/or javascript elements from Bootstrap and elsewhere if you need to go that route.
Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap
#29The people I'm working for/with decided to use bootstrap as a foundation to speed up development. As someone who mainly does "front-end" programming, I don't see much benefit from these "frameworks", especially since we are pretty much redesigning every element. Also, since we are using CSS3/LESS, instead of slicing a PSD I have to recreate every design element from scratch. I hate "designers".
Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap
#30Zurb has one thing going for it that really makes a big difference, SASS. From the minute I saw SASS, I became a convert. Also, it's much less all encompassing.
I use the Bootstrap-Sass gem in all of my projects: https://github.com/thomas-mcdonald/bootstrap-sass