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

Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

designshack.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#41

Post by indiecore »

wonderyak wrote: post #36
nilliams wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, could you give some examples of these 'abominable class names'?

The thing that really turned me off first were the classnames for the grid (one column example): Foundation: .one.column Skeleton: .one.column Bootstrap: .span1 Then there are various other non-semantic classes: .btn, .pull-left, etc. It seems to me very much a toolkit built with a developer's mind ... in mind. I like crafting my css by hand, making it easy to read and understand and above all - easy for me to rememb…

See I have the complete opposite opinion. I love the spanX semantics and .pull-left etc etc make complete sense to me so I think you might be on the ball with it being made for a developer moreso than a designer.

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#43

Post by dorian-graph »

bwh2 wrote: post #24
mhd wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks for doing the comparison. Admittedly, those are exactly the results I would've expected and goes along with each of the respective group's plans. Is Skeleton still in active dev?

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#44

Post by dorian-graph »

chaostheory wrote: post #19

This 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…

Not to pick on you—or anyone else here—but there's a funny idea going floating in the high in this submission and some of the comments.

If I have a large family, I wouldn't really reason with myself saying "You know, it was an easy decision to go with a van as a coupé just doesn't really have enough space." Somewhat different purposes though one can see the overlap, which there is.

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#45

Post by bwh2 »

dorian-graph wrote: post #43
bwh2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks for doing the comparison. Admittedly, those are exactly the results I would've expected and goes along with each of the respective group's plans. Is Skeleton still in active dev?

Skeleton was updated in late June, so it's still being developed as far as I can tell.

We didn't know what to expect, in part because we hadn't previously researched the history of each framework. But you're right, the results are inline with each plan.

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#46

Post by chaostheory »

dorian-graph wrote: post #44
chaostheory wrote: post #19

This 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…

Not to pick on you—or anyone else here—but there's a funny idea going floating in the high in this submission and some of the comments. If I have a large family, I wouldn't really reason with myself saying "You know, it was an easy decision to go with a van as a coupé just doesn't really have enough space." Somewhat different purposes though one can see the overlap, which there is.

I'm not sure if your analogy is fair.

1) Comparing two similar CSS frameworks is different from comparing two very different classes of automobiles that are visually different enough to figure out in less than a second.

2) Not many non-designers look at, let alone even experiment, with enough CSS frameworks for this to be a simple and trivial choice.

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#47

Post by chaostheory »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #28
chaostheory wrote: post #19

This 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 mo…

Could be just preference or even skills (my front end skills aren't that great), but I find many generic design templates to be not that great visually or a lot of work to adapt to a css framework like foundation. Time is expensive.

I like stuff with batteries included. Given bootstrap's momentum, it even has a plethora of design templates as well so you won't have a generic bootstrap looking site.

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#48

Post by ajtaylor »

We've recently done a redesign for a site at $work, but it's not using any sort of framework like Bootstrap or Foundation. Is it possible to add in Bootstrap after the fact? I would kill to have all the various UI elements available to me, but throwing everything out and starting over after a month is not an option.

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#49

Post by bwh2 »

ajtaylor wrote: post #48

We've recently done a redesign for a site at $work, but it's not using any sort of framework like Bootstrap or Foundation. Is it possible to add in Bootstrap after the fact? I would kill to have all the various UI elements available to me, but throwing everything out and starting over after a month is not an option.

I'd try a couple pages and see how it goes. Adding in Bootstrap, Foundation, or Skeleton is typically just a matter of adding some HTML wrapper divs and CSS classes, assuming your starting point is a relatively simple DOM structure and CSS composition.

Re: Zurb Foundation vs. Twitter Bootstrap

#50

Post by mgkimsal »

dsego wrote: post #31
dsego wrote: post #29

The 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".

Also, they're mad at me because it is taking to long to develop the site. And because we're using bootstrap they're expecting it to be done quickly, because "I have all the components and just have to put them together."

if you were just 'putting them together' you'd be done. as much as I'm a bootstrap fan, this is not the use case for it - redesigning the look/feel of every element? you'd be better off not using any framework and building from scratch if you're not getting any value from the defaults of a framework, and instead insist on overriding/modifying everything a framework gives you.

You probably already know this, just thought I'd share your vent.

Post reply on HN