How is this different from Bootstrap ( http://twitter.github.io/bootstrap/ )?
Literally JUST a skin. No idea how this crap gets voted up.
I don't think you read the source code. At all.
Ink – Interface Kit
21–30 of 73 posts
Re: Ink – Interface Kit
#22I like the colors and type of default theme of framework. It really looks neat. On the other hand, used markup looks less than Bootstrap. It definitely could be a selling point. Large screen concept and flexible columns also looks very good. I can give them a try.
Re: Ink – Interface Kit
#23Re: Ink – Interface Kit
#24Can we please come up with a better markup for form element grouping than "div.control-group"? Specifically, HTML has always allowed nesting an inside - and that's more than enough to create either a horizontal or stacked layout. No s needed. And no "for" attribute needed with an unnecessary input ID.
Sometimes introducing more markup can be better architecturally. I agree, .control-group isn't the nicest way of doing things but I don't think nesting an input inside a label is any better.
Re: Ink – Interface Kit
#25I have only tried out YUI pure and went back to bootstrap almost immediately. This feels more complete - I particularly like the icon collection.
Re: Ink – Interface Kit
#26Can we please come up with a better markup for form element grouping than "div.control-group"? Specifically, HTML has always allowed nesting an inside - and that's more than enough to create either a horizontal or stacked layout. No s needed. And no "for" attribute needed with an unnecessary input ID.
Sometimes introducing more markup can be better architecturally. I agree, .control-group isn't the nicest way of doing things but I don't think nesting an input inside a label is any better.
I do not see any disadvantages to nesting inputs inside labels - and it's actually quite semantic and maintainable (in part because inputs no longer need auto-generated IDs). This approach has been part of the HTML standard pretty much always, as well.
It doesn't matter much if forms are generated using a builder like Formtastic, etc. But even then less custom CSS classes is usually better. This way I have been able to write CSS for fairly complex forms using just standard tag selectors, with just one class on the root form container to separate multiple form styles.
Re: Ink – Interface Kit
#27Came across this UI kit a while back. I like their solution of a glossary page to show all classes in use: http://ink.sapo.pt/glossary
Re: Ink – Interface Kit
#28One thing I like about this is that most of the class names are namespaced (as "ink-something"), unlike most of the other ui frameworks I've looked at. This makes it a lot simpler to integrate into an existing site without accidentally dealing with conflicting class names.
Re: Ink – Interface Kit
#29Yet another! Foundation, Bootstrap, 960, unsemantic, etc.
Is there any site like http://todomvc.com/ comparing all these CSS frameworks properly?
Re: Ink – Interface Kit
#30How is this different from Bootstrap ( http://twitter.github.io/bootstrap/ )?
At this point, if your CSS framework doesn't start with "why we're different/better than Bootstrap" I'm pretty much out. I skimmed the docs and see very little here that isn't a direct "Bootstrap does that, we'll do that too".
They support IE7, which I believe Bootstrap 3 has dropped.
If you don't do the comparison yourself, you're at risk of losing out.