Looks cool (pun intended). The website could use more demo pages, though. It could also have a section "Sites using Inuit.css" with screenshots. Why would I use Inuit.css instead of Blueprint ( http://www.blueprintcss.org/ )?
Why would I use Blueprint, when I could use the excellent 960 ( http://960.gs/ ) by Nathan Smith? To me all of the above choices are good as long as there is a way to use Sass ( http://sass-lang.com/ ) like in Compass ( http://compass-style.org/ ) to remove the presentation code from your markup, i.e. span-8, grid_4, etc., using sass. Compass defaults to Blueprint, but thankfully there is the excellent compass-960 plugin ( https://github.com/chriseppstein/compass-960-plugin ) so you also can use 960.
Anyway, I will try Intuit and see how it compares to the above. Thanks.
Make your viewport smaller than the default page width of the website. Do you see horizontal scroll bars? yes for bluebprint, no for innuit. Which makes innuit the clear winner for me.
Some weeks ago I spent some time skimming through various CSS frameworks, and ended up usinig emastic ( http://code.google.com/p/emastic/ ) because it can be made to work well with small browser viewports, and because you can use em/ex instead of px for denoting sizes.
Those are all great ideas, thanks. I'm already considering an 'inuit.css in the wild' type section, as soon as enough people start using it in production.
I definitely need to scale the site up somewhat as it currently doesn't do such a great job on the selling front.
This took off far more quickly than I expected. I only launched five days ago...
