Twitter Bootstrap
twitter.github.com
twitter.github.com
A typical "admin" theme has some variant of the 960 grid, nice forms and buttons, drop-down navs, tabs, and accordions, and multiple layouts.
The templates won't be as well documented as this one, and they'll be more brittle and probably more poorly coded... but they'll only take an hour or two of additional work to (say) Hamlize and bring into your Rails project. They'll look more distinctive than Bootstrap. They'll have better browser compatibility.
Unless you're crazy enough to be selling web apps to web developers, no customer of yours is ever going to know or care which of these things you started out with.
Or, use Bootstrap; it's really nice. I'm just saying you have lots of good options.
It is similar to something like Blueprint (http://www.blueprintcss.org/), which I have used for my prototypes with a lot of success, but just taken much further.
Here the I think the pain "removed from cross-browser CSS" is removed here, at least in part, because this doesn't work across browsers (check the IE8 screenshot @paulirish posted)
Admin themes --- which, again, cost tens of dollars --- are uncannily similar to Twitter Bootstrap: they include full page layouts with dummy navs and a series of demo pages with styled markup for... well, more than is in Twitter Bootstrap! (They get to cheat and use jQuery). They are basically what you'd get if you gave a designer the brief "build the layout for my app, Lorem Ipsum 3.2 Pro".
You really ought to take a look at them. I know it's hard to take things from Themeforest too seriously. It was hard for me too. Now I feel dumb about that.
To elaborate on what Thomas is saying: they revolutionized rapid application development at both our companies, for like $15 each.
In consulting projects I often have call to create little one-off internal tools in Rails, either as a prototype for a tool the client will create or to support their marketing team. These generally have development budgets measured in days, and I have the HTML/CSS skills of roadkilled turtles, so they came out totally unstyled. I'm now embarrassed by them: now when I start a Rails project I drop in one of my prepared admin theme layouts and blammo it magically looks professional.
Given that my clients end up paying thousands for those mini-projects, the level of polish is clearly worth it. It's like a Tiffany box versus delivering the ring in a small paper bag: if you think it doesn't matter, your mental model of human cognition is broken.
I just found out about install_theme (https://github.com/drnic/install_theme) which looks usefull.
Personally I've been using active_admin for simple apps, which has a pretty good theme, but there's not really much variation, if any.
It sounds to me like substantial chunks of these projects could be automated, and that there might be a market for an internal-rails-tool-in-a-can type product.
Disclosure: I'm an adviser of sorts for Lean Designs
2. Unless your customers are themselves webdevs (in which case, AAAAAAAAAARGH!), none of them care where you got your pixels.
3. Search for "admin" themes. I'm sure most of what's on Themeforest is terrible. Just look at the highly-rated admin themes. And use the parts you care about.
Or, you know, rebuild your own admin theme using Twitter Bootstrap as a starting point. Sure. I'd rather just spend, what is it, $25?, to get a fully fleshed out app as a starting point, but that's me.
Utter crazy talk.
All they say is "only modern browsers in mind" -- but I see no details about that.
If it holds together sans pretty effects that's fine.
https://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/issues/15 Give some love to IE7-8
For all your designers and front-end developers: there is a real need for something like this. Have a look through the weekendhacker archives and look at how many developers ask for design help. Templates on sites like themeforest are often only suitable for basic crud/admin apps or require so much customisation it's easier to start from scratch. At the other end of the scale you have a variety of frameworks and boilerplates which are great from a technical perspective but do little to help aesthetically challenged developers like me.
What we need is something in between. A library of pre-styled css 'components' that look good and support the most significant browsers. Similar in principle to Nicole Sullivan's OOCSS but with a greater range of visual styles. I'd pay significantly more than the cost of a themeforest template for a component library that managed all the cross browser issues for me and I'm sure others would too.
And to nit-pick, can you make the drop-downs a bit less fancy?
Skeleton is very similar to Bootstrap, and Skeleton was designed by a designer at Twitter as well. Bootstrap seems to contain more styles for things like tables, alert messages, modal dialogs, etc.
Bravo to the Twitter dev(s) responsible for this. You probably just saved me hundreds of hours of future work and frustration.
The HN discussion about it is here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2772316
Nice contribution in any case.
The newer libraries are basically the same thing (grid/typography/resets) except that they include things that modern browsers support.
So this isn't entirely a new thing.
I don't exactly understand how to use grids (or even why). Is it for visual consistency or is there an underlying usability/maintainability benefit to using grids?
I prefer using the semantic approach to writing CSS using mixins (both Compass and LessCSS have mixin support). That keeps the html markup clean and maintainable.
Also to note, LessCSS (used in Bootstrap) is different from Less Framework (http://lessframework.com/), which is a CSS grid framework.
It's primarily used as an aid for visual layouts, but it took on the other useful qualities everyone else has listed as the grid frameworks got popular in the web.
http://www.markboulton.co.uk/journal/comments/five-simple-st...
http://www.subtraction.com/2004/12/31/grid-computi
How to use grids? It is usually as simple as adding some css, divs and classes. At its most basic, you can use a gridpaper background or this javascript gridder: http://gridder.andreehansson.se/ that works well with the http://960.gs grid framework.
Why I use grids?
- maintainability and cooperation
- visual consistency across browsers
- less development time spent with display bugs
Why I don't use grids?
- Can become a bit boring/holding you back
- Not all designs work with even columns (for example those based on the golden ratio)
- Code bloat (you are using divs like columns and rows, in almost the same way one would layout a page with tables, also devs sometimes forget to remove the unused classes from the production CSS)
If we describe the data then it is easy to describe the view of that data in different ways, and with the same html.
If I'm not a LESS user am I going to feel second class?
Docs could use some serious clarification - which parts are CSS-only and which require what js files.
I'm doing some sort of new web project once a week, for hopefully a year. Writeup on my blog about it: http://kguac.com/2011/08/1-x-52-week-4-jambx-twitter-for-lyr...
Random rant: Why do they call it "Twitter bootstrap"? IMO that kind of association is a little vain. Rails isn't called 'Ruby on 37Signals'. Besides, it's slightly confusing because it seems to have little to do with Twitter.
That way you would have a super awesome looking app right from the start.
The pros can work on the lean frameworks while the lazy ones like me can hop onto the shoulders of the giants ;-)!
Either way, this is a great library for bootstrapping your web-app.
I do have some qualms though, but this is due to the limitation of CSS. You really should start practicing separation of content from presentation. It's great to see them leverage LESS but I'd like to see this integrated with SASS/Compass.
I'll probably convert it over and release the link on hacker news when ready.
* the stuff that's really cool is forms/modal/navbar/tips
Awesome, looking forward.
Twitter itself isn't giving up on old browsers; which makes me wonder how interesting this would be to anyone else who wants to create a real-world site for the general public (the general public still uses those browsers quite widely)...
The IE incompatibility is a shame, this could be a nice poster for progressive enhancement.
Forget making it work with IE8 and older. I want to see it working in IE11. (Insert your own Spinal Tap jokes here).
Other than that, personal preference.