

CSS Framework for Dummies - yegor256a
https://github.com/yegor256/tacit

======
hamhamed
This has great potential to interfere with other css modules like nprogress or
noUIslider to throw a few. The same reason why the <table> element requires a
'table' class for bootstrap as explained here:
[http://getbootstrap.com/css/#tables](http://getbootstrap.com/css/#tables)

 _For basic styling—light padding and only horizontal dividers—add the base
class .table to any <table>. It may seem super redundant, but given the
widespread use of tables for other plugins like calendars and date pickers,
we've opted to isolate our custom table styles._

~~~
foreigner
Maybe you could work around this by adding a single class: "explicit". If that
class is present it resets all the tacit css back to default.

~~~
callum85
Third party components (date pickers etc.) wouldn't know about the 'explicit'
class so it would be up to the user to add this class to all non-semantic
tables to 'undo' the Tacit CSS, but they won't know which components output
such tables... This is supposed to be a drop-in 'make the page look nice'
thing.

------
DigitalSea
This looks great, I just forked it and will have a play around with it within
the next week. The biggest gripe I have with CSS frameworks like Bootstrap and
Foundation is the amount of effort you need to go to in regards to how you
write your markup and what classes you use, they are far too opinionated until
you reach the point you spend more time undoing default CSS styles than you do
writing your own. Bootstrap is a great example of this, you define a
container, then you define a row and then you add in your grid classes and if
you want to nest a grid item within a grid, you have to introduce another row
element to do so, it can get messy.

~~~
yegor256a
I had exactly the same frustration with Bootstrap and others. You need to
spend a lot of time to learn them and in the end you end up with a lot of
changes to their styles anyway. So, what's the point in having them in the
first place? :) Anyway, I'd love to see your contribution, if interested.

~~~
rimantas
The point is to use them for prototypes and then throw away, alas it is never
done. My personal opinion is that without CSS frameworks the web would be a
better place. Not is is common just throw a bunch of frameworks (js and css)
into the heap and call it a day.

~~~
mattmanser
As much as the one size fits all of bootstrap frustrates me, were you around
before bootstrap?

Before-bootstrap is like before-jquery, you really can't understand the
colossal contribution of either unless you were there. And just how much of a
mess it was.

The dev world is unquestionably better for bootstrap.

------
Liblor
Looks interesting especially for non-designers like me. I also recommend
Skeleton[1] for a simple and clean look. It has some additional features and
makes use of classes, but is still quite simple.

[1] [http://getskeleton.com/](http://getskeleton.com/)

~~~
greenjellybean
I love skeleton and use it almost exclusively. Most of the classes are simple
and you can easily overwrite stuff to make the design unique.

------
klum
This looks nice! Led me to think about default styles--I suppose one of the
strengths of HTML is that it describes the meaning of the content rather than
the presentation--it's up to the client to present the various elements as
they see fit. On the other hand, why couldn't the default look in a normal
browser be something like this or like
[http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/](http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/)
? I'm not sure there's a reason an unstyled website should look like crap
(well, I guess the reason is legacy baggage).

~~~
talmand
I don't believe there's such a thing as an "unstyled" website. At least if
you're looking at it through a browser. Even if the page has no css at all,
the browser is still using css defaults that it has hard coded. That hard
coded css can differ from browser to browser. If one were to dig into it, you
can often change much of these defaults to your preferences.

That's why there are css resets and projects like this or Normalize. They make
base html look the same across browsers before you start creating design-based
css.

~~~
klum
Sure, what I meant was that the hardcoded CSS could perhaps be a bit more
useful. Useful _and_ consistent across browsers--that's wishful thinking, of
course :)

------
normloman
The world needs something like this. No substitute for real design, but a
great replacement for the default browser style.

One criticism: At that font weight, Helvetica Neue looks shitty on Windows
machines. Take a look:
[http://i.imgur.com/peDYi53.png](http://i.imgur.com/peDYi53.png)

I've had better luck with open sans at that weight.

~~~
teh_klev
With you on your sentiments.

With regard to your font weight problem, looks ok to me (Win7 x64 chrome/ff/IE
latests):

[http://imgur.com/NPSDsWg](http://imgur.com/NPSDsWg)

~~~
normloman
hmm strange. I'm on win7, X64 with chrome, and it renders poorly to me. Maybe
I have some font setting wrong.

Good luck with your project!

------
t3ra
This looks cool! I see this helping a lot of people just get started and focus
on what they do (until they include something else and it screws it all up :P)

The first thing that comes to my mind is making themes for this! Should fork
and play around.

But how far can be push this ... What about grids ?

~~~
untothebreach
I am the farthest thing from a CSS expert, so if someone came up with a decent
grid system that was class-less (like this "framework" currently is) I would
be ecstatic. Till then, I will wait for `flexbox` to be fully supported in all
the browsers I care about :)

~~~
rado
My framework [http://natuive.net](http://natuive.net) has class-less grid,
just put anything in a .row div.

~~~
rolfvandekrol
How is a grid that requires a .row class exactly class-less?

~~~
swsieber
It's probably because you don't need to explicitly flag a container as a grid
with a class. I think that's what he's getting at.

