www.webdeveloper.com
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Most popular & Best Responsive web design frame works

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    68

    Most popular & Best Responsive web design frame works

    I have designed more than hundred responsive websites in my experience. Still I need learn more do more.

    So in my experience I came across wordpress responsive themes, css tricks, jQuery tricks and html 5 tags etc.,

    The most popular and well known responsive web design frame works are:
    Bootstrap twitter,
    Foundation.

    These two can provide besy browser compatibility and high level coding.
    Looking for a best Web Design Training in New York? Briomatrix is the best institute. Visit www.linkedin.com/in/nycwebdesign

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Newyork, NY, USA
    Posts
    1
    Thank you for sharing this useful information about responsive web design. Would you like to share some better techniques of building responsive web design.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Rostock
    Posts
    15
    I personally prefer ZURB Foundation. It is easier for me to remember the class names, e.g.

    large-12
    medium-8
    label
    alert
    panel

    and so on.

    The last sites I made are

    http://schranz.in
    http://webentwicklungrostock.de/_lab...d-performance/ (not finished yet)
    http://www.w3cvalidco.de/landing-page-march-2013/
    ... and so on ...

    Version 5.3.0 of Foundation does offer really a LOT to make sites responsive, just check their docs here -> http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/

    I am thinking about a paid course (maybe video, not sure yet) about coding with Foundation...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2
    Thanks for sharing this with us Bro. I have also used Twitter Bootstrap for my responsive web designing and got a better work experience than before, Indeed. Keep sharing like this.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,042
    Generally speaking I don't consider the word "best" to belong in the same sentence as "framework" -- see the old saying "Just because something is popular, that doesn't make it good."

    See fast food.

    On the whole frameworks by their very nature rely on presentational use of classes, a hundred K or more of CSS before you even start writing the page, and results in pages that are harder to write, harder to maintain, harder to maintain, and for all the claims of making responsive layout 'easy' they generally make such a mess of things on the accessibility front most often all I can advise people to do is to throw them away and start over from scratch.

    Bootstrap is an excellent example of this; as a rule of thumb I don't let my templates -- that's HTML + CSS + SCRIPTS + IMAGES, not counting content or social plugins -- reach more than 72k in size. Bootstrap start out at over 100k! Same for nonsense like jQuery which is so fat, bloated and slow it has no business on 99.99% of websites it ends up on.

    Of course, what really makes me laugh is so many people call this extra garbage "easier" -- Bootstrap is "easier", foundation is "Easier", grids are "easier", jQuery is "easier", mootools is "easier"... and to be brutally frank...

    Same goes for all that pre-processor nonsense like LESS and SASS, or outright broken halfwit thinking like OOCSS -- defeats the entire reason to even be using HTML and CSS in the first place, and if you see genuine benefits from using it, it probably means you don't grasp how to use selectors properly or how inheritance works.

    Developers are DUMBER for things like this even existing, and any perceived advantages seem to be more placebo than reality! At best it's sweeping incompetence under the rug, at worst resulting in fat bloated laundry lists of how not to build a website guaranteed to be more bounce than conversion due to accessibility failings, painfully slow page loads, etc... Worse the result can end up costing more to host should any real traffic show up; and in most cases if real traffic shows up it's because the content is that damned good, NOT because of the code hung around it's neck like a dead albatross.

    But again, as I keep saying, if you have a CTC* in excess of 3:1 in the markup, more than 32k of CSS for an entire website, more than 32k of JS for an entire website (not counting the fat bloated social plugins), you've probably done it all wrong!

    Which is why I think starting out with over 100k of CSS or 100k of JS before you've even started marking up content semantically, you're doing the equivalent of stripping naked, painting a glow-in-the-dark bullseye on your back, and running into the jungles of Vietnam in 1970 waving a flashlight around screaming "shoot me, shoot me!!!"

    No matter how many lemmings out there seem bound and determined to do exactly that.

    * CTC == code to content ratio. How much markup there is compared to the amount of content.
    Last edited by deathshadow; 07-11-2014 at 10:46 AM.
    Java is to JavaScript as Ham is to Hamburger.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Rostock
    Posts
    15
    So you call all users that are using stuff like normalize.css, boilerplate and stuff like that, or sites that are using jQuery or any other JS framework (even Wordpress and other CMS), sites that were made by dumb people?

    Ofcourse I could do everything from scratch, but frameworks are made for rapid prototyping. If you download and use the whole stuff then you just do not have an optimized page. If you wipe out unused CSS/JS (and kick off social media stuff) you have a pretty fast loading site.

    What is wrong with using helpful code? I could even do my own "framework" that I could use over and over again.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,042
    To an extent... yes.... actually... no... NO! actually, I'd use the word "ignorant" -- some very smart people can do some very ignorant things! The old "you had to go to college to say something that stupid" joke.

    Or as the old saying goes, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."

    Usually it's not their fault, they've been misled, are misinformed, or again never learned to use HTML and CSS properly in the first place. See all the jQuery nutters who use it to do CSS' job... or that use it to piss away accessibility to do things HTML can do without scripting. (see this ALL the damned time with what should simply be type="radio")

    It's one of the real laughs of things like Blueprint or jQuery -- most people using them don't know enough about HTML, CSS or JavaScript to actually be aware if said frameworks are actually gaining them anything or not! Same as the PSD jockeys wasting time drawing pretty pictures and having the giant set of brass to call themselves designers; Generally they don't know enough about HTML, CSS, limits of the medium, emissive colourspace or accessibility minimums to be designing but two things so far as websites are concerned!

    ... and again, I say this because I can write as little or even less code of my own without the framework, and typically in less time too! I do not find them to save time, result in writing less code, and in many cases they defeat the entire purpose of even using HTML/CSS in the first place as most always they rely on presentational use of classes.

    HTML and CSS aren't hard if you take the time to understand semantics, separation of presentation from content, progressive enhancement and accessibility norms -- people just MAKE it hard by failing to grasp those, failing to fully learn the underlying language, and diving for fat bloated crap that serves no legitimate purpose.

    Bootcrap and jQueery topping the list of bad bloated garbage that just makes sites harder to build, harder to maintain, and harder for visitors to use -- and yet for some jacktarded reason those are the very things people seem to have deluded themselves into believing about them! Seriously, what's in the kool-aid? Jquery in particular, it's adherents and apologists sound like they're planning to move to northwestern Guyana.

    I fail to see any advantage to them. They make MORE work, not less. They make less accessible sites... and in Bootstrap's case most sites built with it are such inaccessible wrecks filled with design concepts that have no damned business on websites in the first place, I'm a bit shocked they have anything more than bounce traffic! As a visitor to websites, I bounce off a LOT of sites for those very reasons these days!

    The CLOSEST I come to a framework would be this starting HTML:
    http://www.cutcodedown.com/for_others/template.html

    and this starting CSS:
    http://www.cutcodedown.com/for_others/screen.css

    ... and that's ALL I've ever needed. Pretty much stock starting XHTML 1.0 STRICT, a simple smallish reset, and the base setup for the elastic semi-fluid bits... and I don't add that starting CSS until AFTER I have completed the semantic markup of the content.

    Much of that is because of the development approach I advocate. Start with what's actually importnat -- THE CONTENT (or a reasonable facsimile of future content), add semantic markup to it, and then the content and semantic markup dictate the layout, NOT the other way around. It's why I consider screwing around drawing goofy pictures in Photoshop and calling it a "design" to be a waste of time at best, an outright scam at worst.

    Seriously, if you're starting out with several hundred k of scripting and CSS before you even start working on the markup, you're doing it ALL WRONG! Probably resulting in 10k or more for every 1K of plaintext that seems to be the hallmark of sleazing together off the shelf solutions any-old-way.

    It's also why my advice to 90%+ of the people out there who have been duped into using garbage like frameworks, transitional markup, and other broken, bloated buggy ways of thinking is to pitch it in the trash and start over from scratch. I have YET to see ANY of these technologies used in a manner that was worth a flying purple fish. They universally reek of "I can haz HTMLz", "Use jQuery" and "accessibility, what's that?"

    That last part being a major problem which is why a lot of the crap people put on websites in terms of layout, design and 'fancy bits', I'd never put on a website in the first place.
    Last edited by deathshadow; 07-11-2014 at 11:53 AM.
    Java is to JavaScript as Ham is to Hamburger.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3
    yes both are very easy to use and best responsive open sources but try to use html5 and css3 for the responsive web templates.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    43
    I have also used Twitter Bootstrap for my responsive web designing and got a better work experience than before, Keep sharing like this.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Rostock
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by alieen View Post
    yes both are very easy to use and best responsive open sources but try to use html5 and css3 for the responsive web templates.
    ???

    How do you think responsiveness is achieved? Ever heard about media queries?

    Your comment is useless.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    41
    Thanks for sharing, I find lots of best web design frameworks that you can choose from today, depending on your desire.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center



Recent Articles