Twitter Bootstrap 2.0 pre-release demo | Hacker News Reader

Twitter Bootstrap 2.0 pre-release demo

bootstrap.io

160 pointssynparb59 comments

* bootstrap.io is not from or sanctioned by the Bootstrap Team

Open article View on HN

Please note that this is a demo (outdated too) and not really authorized by the project itself. It's unfortunate that some folks feel a need to put something up so quickly.
If you want to look at the current status of 2.0 and help test the release, please look at the 2.0-wip branch: https://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/tree/2.0-wip
The team expects to release something in a few weeks.

Good point. It is a bit confusing since it looks fairly official and all links point to the project. Hadn't seen this discussion previously: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/twitter-bootstrap/ux...

It bugs the hell out of me that they apply styling to vanilla tables. I wish they'd namespace it with a class because it messes up things like datepickers on JQuery-UI.

Yes! This was immediately what I checked to see if they had changed it.. and they haven't. I was really impressed with the look and feel of the Bootstrap UI but once I started to look through the code, I really felt let down. Here were other issues I saw:
* styling of default elements (like table) interferes with other styles
* inconsistent use of variables
* encouraging users to define columns with html classes (span4, offset6) instead of using less to apply the rule to the html.
* completely incompatible with JQuery UI (they had an open bug about it with some workarounds)
In the end, I ended up just picking a few good ideas out of it. It looks great and it's probably ok for a certain class of sites but be aware of the limitations as well.

Couldn't the same argument be applied to JQuery UI then?

Not that I've checked, but common sense dictates jQuery UI (and any other such lib) does use a class to identify elements.
That doesn't, however, mean they don't inherit from the style of the base element. Which they will, no matter how they're classed or ID'd, if the base elements have been styled in CSS.

No, because jQuery UI does not style "vanilla" elements. Namespaces are used to prevent it from breaking external styling.

I agree. If you can use SASS or LESS, it makes namespacing Bootstrap really easy, though.

I've been working heavily with 2.0 for a couple of months now and it is a huge improvement over 1.x. I've converted 90% of a $20 template that I bought over to it and it cut out a ton of bad css (you get what you pay for I guess).
It is still a bit in flux (ie: they just renamed a bunch of css for alerts and tables), but if you don't mind tracking the progress (made easy with your own git branch), it is a great basis to start a website from.

Glad to see there are some variables for setting things like the navbar colors - I just started adapting a site to the 1.4 version and had to start out by changing all of the rules individually so I could implement a different color scheme.
Edit: Actually, I take it back as there are still hardcoded colors and the assumption that you are using white as the text. Would be nice if it was based off a few variables instead.

Couldn't this be changed in the 'less' files?

Those are the files I'm referring to - if you look in navbar.less for example, you'll see lots of
color: @white;
in the various navbar rules. It would be great if there was a single variable:
@navbarTextColor: @white;
and then all the rules could include:
color: @navbarTextColor;
which is essentially what I've ended up doing.

The link just redirects to the 1.4.0 version of bootstrap.

After talking with the Bootstrap developers, I believe they asked the people who put up the demo, which was unofficial, to take it down and it looks like they complied: https://twitter.com/#!/synapticarbors/status/159390827217559...

I'm just getting redirected to the original bootstrap page at http://twitter.github.com/bootstrap/

I built https://www.becouplydates.com/ on the 2.0-wip branch. We've been very pleased with it.

I know 2.0 isn't finished yet but I checked out the progress on the 2.0-wip branch yesterday and the 'responsive' part of it is definitely not polished yet. In contrast I have played with skeleton and it resizes much better out of the box. For example, when you start to resize that page check out the footer text and the way you lose text behind the video. I also don't like how when things go wrong instead of having to scroll horizontally it cuts off content. (ideally everything would resize perfectly, but I think cutting off information is the last thing we want)

Browsing your source: the <center> tag is deprecated, friend.

Haha, I'm well aware ... and pretty embarrassed. :)

Don't be embarrassed :) Have you done a view source on Hacker News? It works.

It is also used on Google Search. There is nothing more alive than the center-tag.

shameless plug.

This isn't an official release yet.

Yeah, I spent a couple of hours porting the Bootstrap 2.0-wip branch to SASS yesterday (so bootstrap-sass is half ready when it's released) and I was surprised to see 'Bootstrap 2.0' posted on HN, seeing as I've seen 'a few weeks' quoted as the release date.
bootstrap.io isn't actually running the most up-to-date documentation: it's missing the new style dropdowns, as well as the JS builder and a few plugins (typeahead, carousel etc).

I'm changing the title to reflect that it is a pre-release demo

Thanks, it was kind of confusing before.
A lot of great stuff going on in the 2.0 version. Excited for it's release.

I just used this bootstrap, to make this: http://www.piparollcall.com/
pretty awesome. very small when minified, even without less.
love it!

so it turns out im getting a HUGE response from this website. over 2000+ tweets to senators, now listed on craigslists sopa page... and couldn't have done it as fast as i did without the bootstrap. thanks twitter <3

it just takes me to twitter bootstrap github, is the site down?

I put up a call-to-action site for sopa the other day. Due to the timely nature of the site, we had to get it up fast. Ended up using bootstrap for the first time. Was highly impressed - we were able to get a decent looking site up in around an hour. Looking forward to 2.0.

I still prefer http://getskeleton.com as a boilerplate over Twitter Bootstrap. Bootstrap tries to do too much. Skeleton does just enough to be useful and then gets out of the way.

I'm fond of skeleton as well. The only drawback I've found is that it uses a 16-column layout. I find I often want to divide the screen in thirds and 12-columns would be much handier.

The release data of Bootstrap 2.0 has been announced: https://dev.twitter.com/blog/open-source-summit-bootstrap

Why are CSS frameworks becoming so prominent only now? Why weren't they coming out as much years ago? It seems like they would have been even more useful then.

Broad browser support for the visually interesting parts.

Here are an alternative private link to bootstrap v2.0 http://mrtopf.de/bootstrap/docs/

*EDIT, it seems that the link are 404 since today, i'm unable to locate alternative

Look at http://bootstrap.io/Demo/BaseCss in FF (PC) -- anyone else see anything odd?

Not when navigating to that link directly, but I do when I click "Base CSS" at the top.

What is it?

Does anyone else see the "Example Blockquotes" section all f*ed up or is it just me. (FF 9, Ubuntu)

The link no longer works. Redirects to v1.x.

is there any changelog for 2.0?

The 2.0 is not yet in the change log: https://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/wiki/Changelog
But you'll find some indication of the work done on the road map: https://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/wiki/Roadmap

http://bootstrap.io/Demo/Upgrading

I'd love for someone smarter than me to compare Zurb Foundation and this. It seems like Twitter has a few except things (pill-button callouts, etc), but Foundation seems VERY responsive-focused whereas Twitter Bootstrap seems to have added responsiveness in.

We looked closely at both and, while Bootstrap has far more features / UI elements, the attention to detail in building responsive pages is better in Foundation, IMO.
The elements are nice to have in Bootstrap but we are building our own elements on Foundation's solid platform and feel better about it over the long term.

My understanding is that responsive layouts is a big part of the 2.0 of Twitter Bootstrap. Did you evaluate it or the 1.0 version?

It must have been the 1.0 version. I'll give it another look.

First thing that pops up to me it's how beautiful and well designed the TB is when compared to Zurb.
In terms of implementation I've only used TB, and it was simple, not very intrusive.

Conversely, people could attest the same thing for Zurb. I have used both and I like Foundation a lot better. Haven't tried tb 2.0 yet which apparently has the responsive grid which is the main feature of foundation

I always thought Foundation's grid system was way better. It's responsive and infinitely nestable (and I like the naming scheme better). But Bootstrap 2.0 might change all that.

I've used both. I found Zurb to be lacking in components related to Bootstrap. Bootstrap is definitely more featured.

I'm sure we know by now that more features doesn't better. Depends on the use case

I think the clue is in the names: Zurb Foundation would be a good place to start building your site on top of; Twitter Bootstrap is perfect for quickly getting things done.
Personally, I used TB because I needed something that looked ok but without expending much effort

Foundation does just the same for getting things done ...

I found that Twitter Bootstrap has better looking defaults after using a morning caffeine burst to drop Zurb Foundation into my app and see the difference. For example, things scaled much nicer on Bootstrap when I started Ctrl-MouseWheeling the text size.
That said, I hope Bootstrap 2.0 nails responsive design. I think we should be checking our progress on mobile devices as we develop, not drop in a mobile solution at the end and hope it works. Responsive design is the hard part whereas look-and-feel CSS is more trivial to drop in.

I have tried both Twitter 1.x and Zurb with Ruby on Rails and I found Zurb to be easier to use and have a better structure internal structure, easier to customize, etc

Reply on news.ycombinator.com