zurb-foundation anyone?

[Randy Terbush]

Found a question about this late last year but no real responses.

With the recent discussion of possibly getting away from skeleton, was curious if anyone has looked at this.

http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/sass.html

Very compass centric approach to layout. Looks interesting.

[Stefan Wrobel]

Zurb definitely has a lot of advantages over Bootstrap although for some reason isn't as widely adopted. In terms of being easy to find themes for, Bootstrap definitely has the edge.

ror_ecommerce uses zurb

[Randy Terbush]

Alessandro,

The only drawback I see to Foundation is the lack of support for anything older than IE9. Any workable option to deal with that?

--

Randy

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Alessandro Lepore <lepor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Il giorno giovedì 9 maggio 2013 06:57:08 UTC+2, Randy Terbush ha scritto:

Found a question about this late last year but no real responses.

With the recent discussion of possibly getting away from skeleton, was curious if anyone has looked at this.

we use foundation for responsive layouts, if there will be the opportunity to build a complete spree theme it will be based on foundation :)

[Alessandro Lepore]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:28:56 AM UTC+2, Randy Terbush wrote:

The only drawback I see to Foundation is the lack of support for anything older than IE9. Any workable option to deal with that?

Foundation 3 is still supported and play well with IE8: http://foundation.zurb.com/old-docs/f3/support.php

IE7 is not an option for me :) 

[Randy Terbush]

Just an FYI, I decided to attempt to tackle design issues on my end and spent a few days giving Bootstrap a try. For whatever reason, was not having great experience with Bootstrap, so I decided to give Foundation a go. 

After a couple of dedicated days, I am probably 75% complete and am enjoying the experience. Layout seems very well controlled in Foundation whereas I was not getting expected results from Bootstrap. Lots of nice CSS components predefined, some nifty Javascript bits and it seems well integrated with Compass.

Here is a "kitchen sink" link to show all of the features of Foundation in case anyone is interested. http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/kitchen-sink.html

[William Sulinski]

Randy, did you ever complete replacing Skeleton with Foundation?

[Randy Terbush]

William,
I did replace all frontend templates with Foundation. Before doing so, I gave bootstrap a try but struggled to get what I wanted. Foundation 4 was very easy to work with.

That said, Foundation has been in active development so expect bugs if you are using a lot of the mobile /responsive features.

My layout is mostly custom so I am sorry I don't have anything to share other than my experience.

[Keil Miller]

I am really liking Neat by Thoughtbot. You can use what ever schematic tags you want and apply the grid via css. No extra markup! This would make it easier for people to modify if they need to. https://github.com/thoughtbot/neat

[Jim Nist]

i am a big fan of Foundation and have used it in several projects. one of the great things is that you can use some of it and ignore some of it. i love their grid, but decided that rewriting/converting all of the templates was more than i wanted to do and that for the most part, Skeleton grid was just as good. 

i did need to modify Skeleton somewhat (make it wider for one) so i converted it to SCSS with a few extra variables for the grid width. the code for that is here: 

https://github.com/ngn33r/skeleton-grid-scss

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 12:57:08 AM UTC-4, Randy Terbush wrote:

[Nate Lowrie]

I also just recently replaced skeleton with the Foundation 4 elements on my own custom theme. I highly recommend it. Makes a lot of things really easy to do. A few things to note:

1. For nested taxons, the side nav widgets aren't ideal, especially if you want people to be able to click on the parent taxon. I just stuck with my own styling and coffee script.
2. Still implementing the form control components, but so far they are outstanding.
3. It enabled me to get rid of a ton of jQuery plugins for things like slideshows and lightboxes.
4. I love the control I have for mobile and how seamless and easy it is to integrate.
5. It allowed me to eliminate 1/2 of my SASS code.
6. Having SASS variables for just about everything built-in to foundation has made my life much easier.

If you have a custom theme and aren't using any of the styling from the default spree theme, go for it. If you are just making tweaks to the spree theme or an extension, it may not be worth it.

[William Sulinski]

For anyone that has implemented Foundation or another CSS framework, how long did it take? Did you completely remove Skeleton and go with a fluid layout?

--
William Sulinski

Founder, Pistol Lake

t/310.651.8224

e/wil...@pistollake.com

w/www.pistollake.com

[Nate Lowrie]

William,

My experience is going to be a little skewed because I started with a completely custom theme and replaced parts of the SASS and Javascript code with Foundation. It has taken me around 6 hours to hook in the base foundation modules, top bar, buttons, grid layout, form components, and replace the javascript components. I was lucky that the grid containers were the same structure and I really just had to change class names. I ended up removing Skeleton and going with Foundation's fluid layout. It ended up looking a lot nicer on mobile.

If you are implementing from scratch, it will take you a good bit longer because you may need to overwrite views... Since I had a custom template anyways, it was worth it to implement because I was able to reduce my code footprint and use module elements that are much more tested than my custom code would have been.

Regards,

Nate