Ink – Interface Kit
ink.sapo.pt
ink.sapo.pt
For me Bootstrap, Zurb are currently only really interesting in a sense I would use them in projects. For a while I used Skeleton, I think it lost pace a little and I get same benefits with Zurb.
Again, I welcome your vision of organized front-end, would appreciate a page that would outline differences and specific benefits.
Compare mixins.less https://github.com/sapo/Ink/blob/develop/less/modules/mixins... https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/blob/master/less/mixins.le...
Personally, I like it. It's nice to have competition :)
If you don't do the comparison yourself, you're at risk of losing out.
Their primary job is not marketing. Their primary job is to build the framework.
Why do you think things like Y Combinator exists? They do some work others aren't willing to and others lose out because of it.
It's to the developer's benefit to tell you why his product is good, but it's not their duty. These guys worked on and released a free product for you. You can choose to use it if you want but they don't owe you anything or an explanation of why it's better than Bootstrap.
The developers put reasonable efforts in building the website, introducing the project so that people will adopt it, so I think an article comparing their project with Bootstrap definitely helps with adoption.
And yes, corporate governance regarding browsers does weigh in heavily in mass-market sites here, so we have to make sure the layouts don't break - Ink enables delivering a predictable, working layout that degrades gracefully down to IE7 for that reason.
Seriously now, yes, Bootstrap has always had forms. But as a developer who merely dabbles in design, I personally prefer Ink's markup because it's responsive off the bat (at least compared to BS 2.0, haven't tried 3.0).
Specifically, HTML has always allowed nesting an <input> inside <label> - and that's more than enough to create either a horizontal or stacked layout. No <div>s needed. And no "for" attribute needed with an unnecessary input ID.
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.
Note: It's just an example, not promoting the site.
Not the easiest CSS to write, but I strongly prefer clean markup (at a cost of hackish CSS) to hackish markup.
Maybe an aria-labelledby attribute would fix this? Heck, could still use a label "for" attribute and keep the input nested.
Either way, I meant that it is legal HTML to do that kind of nesting. Did not know that it was frowned upon, as far as standards are concerned, even assistive.
Nice to see some portuguese projects here.
On a unrelated note, how did this end up on as the musicbox website framework? I worked in this project a while ago (backend and frontend clients only) and had no idea who did the musicbox.sapo.pt frontend.
For instance, if I want a two column layout, I put two divs inside the '.column-group' container. Now (theoretically) if I were to dynamically add a third column, it seems that Ink would automatically adjust the other two columns to fit.
With bootstrap, I would need to change the '.spanx' of each div within the '.row'
Using "large/medium/small" prefixes and specifying the percentage of each column (large-50 medium-50 small-100)
Take a look at http://ink.sapo.pt/layout
Of course they don't own those 3 letters which have a wide array of meaning, similar to words like "bootstrap", "ember", "buffer", or "backbone". I'd be hesitant to use those words in a product, open source or otherwise, however.
Now just hesitating because of the end CSS size. 160KB minified is nearly twice the size of Bootstrap.
Seriously now, it's been in internal use for a good while because it solved problems that Bootstrap didn't address (like the particular grid flavour and some corner cases in responsive layouts), and the best way gather feedback and improve it is, of course, making it public.
Why does the W3C and every CSS framework avoid making 'center' a thing? Yes, I know how to do it myself...I'm just saying that it has its place.
Doesn't it?