4

Comparing sites designed in 960 with sites designed using Blueprint, it seems to me the 960 sites are a lot sharper.

I don't know if this is a coincidence of the samples I'm looking at.

Or is there something about 960 that is more conducive to good design?

dthrasher
  • 40,656
  • 34
  • 113
  • 139
cyoung
  • 41
  • 4
  • I'm only allowed one hyperlink. Sorry. – cyoung Sep 27 '09 at 14:38
  • I've updated the second link. – T.J. Crowder Sep 27 '09 at 14:42
  • 2
    Actually, this probably would have been a more appropriate one: http://www.blueprintcss.org – T.J. Crowder Sep 27 '09 at 14:45
  • 1
    I think the sites built on either can be as sharp as you want. However IMHO I find sites that limit the horizontal to 960 (or whatever) to be a tad annoying when I want to see more content on my screen 1600x1200 (or more). Kudos to any site that allows the user to decide how wide the content should be. e.g. The Man in Blue has a great example: http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/ResolutionLayout/ – scunliffe Sep 27 '09 at 15:04
  • 1
    read this post about why CSS frameworks as such miss the point of CSS: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/203069/what-is-the-best-css-framework-and-are-they-worth-the-effort – markus Sep 27 '09 at 15:56
  • 1
    @scunliffe - sweet jesus that's horrible – wefwfwefwe Oct 08 '09 at 10:48

3 Answers3

3

i personally think that the main difference is learning curve and flexibility. the 960 will let you do 960px wide sites and learning curve is very low. watch this video you'll have your site design up in few minutes: http://net.tutsplus.com/videos/screencasts/a-detailed-look-at-the-960-css-framework/

blueprint is more flexible. but still 960.gs is my personal preference.

ondrobaco
  • 742
  • 4
  • 13
  • 24
1

In agreement with Chris Schmitz I prefer to use my own more semantic set of classes, but that's not to say I don't delve into a framework occasionally. If I do use a framework, then I tend to strip it back to bare bones and customize it extensively depending on my required layout. I know in some ways this defeats the object of using a framework but it gives me the best of both worlds: Knowing it will work across most browsers, as well as being semantic and sitting comfortably alongside my existing code.

Personally, I use Blueprint (if and when I need a framework). The 960 Grid system is well built but quite restrictive. When it comes to customization Blueprint wins.

Rowan
  • 5,597
  • 2
  • 22
  • 32
0

in addition to Chris Schmitz post - when I use the blueprint CSS I always have a question, should I use 2 or more classnames for one div

<div class="span-13 prepend-7 my-class-name">

.span-13 {width:510px;} // from blueprint
.prepend-7 {padding-left:280px;} // from blueprint
.my-class-name {font:, color: background}

or union it in one class

<div class="my-class-name">
.my-class-name {font:; color:; background:; width:510px; padding-left:280px;}

and I always select the second variant,

also I didn't happy with this (using blueprint is requirement) reset code in blueprint

h1 {font-size:3em;line-height:1;margin-bottom:0.5em;} h2 {font-size:2em;margin-bottom:0.75em;} h3 {font-size:1.5em;line-height:1;margin-bottom:1em;}

to avoid any differents in browsers I always ovverride the blueprint values with zero in my classes .my-class-name h1 {margin: 0px;}

So, conclusion is - if you didn't want to have your styles and design -> blueprint is your choice

se_pavel
  • 2,181
  • 1
  • 28
  • 42