960 比 Blueprint 更有利于好的设计吗？
Comparing sites designed in 960 with sites designed using Blueprint, it seems to me the 960 sites are a lot sharper.
I don't know if this is a coincidence of the samples I'm looking at.
Or is there something about 960 that is more conducive to good design?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（3）
我个人认为主要区别在于学习曲线和灵活性。
960 可以让您制作 960px 宽的网站，并且学习曲线非常低。观看此视频，您将在几分钟内完成网站设计：http://net.tutsplus.com/videos/screencasts/a-detailed-look-at-the-960-css-framework/
蓝图更加灵活。但960.gs仍然是我个人的偏好。
i personally think that the main difference is learning curve and flexibility.
the 960 will let you do 960px wide sites and learning curve is very low. watch this video you'll have your site design up in few minutes: http://net.tutsplus.com/videos/screencasts/a-detailed-look-at-the-960-css-framework/
blueprint is more flexible. but still 960.gs is my personal preference.
与 Chris Schmitz 的观点一致，我更喜欢使用我自己的更具语义的类集，但这并不是说我偶尔不会深入研究框架。如果我确实使用框架，那么我倾向于将其精简为简单的框架，并根据我所需的布局对其进行广泛的自定义。我知道在某些方面这违背了使用框架的目的，但它给了我两全其美的好处：知道它可以在大多数浏览器上运行，并且具有语义性并且可以轻松地与我现有的代码一起使用。
就我个人而言，我使用蓝图（如果我需要框架）。 960 Grid 系统构建良好，但限制颇多。当谈到定制时，蓝图获胜。
In agreement with Chris Schmitz I prefer to use my own more semantic set of classes, but that's not to say I don't delve into a framework occasionally. If I do use a framework, then I tend to strip it back to bare bones and customize it extensively depending on my required layout. I know in some ways this defeats the object of using a framework but it gives me the best of both worlds: Knowing it will work across most browsers, as well as being semantic and sitting comfortably alongside my existing code.
Personally, I use Blueprint (if and when I need a framework). The 960 Grid system is well built but quite restrictive. When it comes to customization Blueprint wins.
除了 Chris Schmitz 的帖子 - 当我使用蓝图 CSS 时，我总是有一个问题，我应该为一个 div 使用 2 个或更多类名，
还是将它联合到一个类中
，我总是选择第二个变体，
我也不满意这个（需要使用蓝图）
重置蓝图 h1 中的代码
{font-size:3em;line-height:1;margin-bottom:0.5em;}
h2 {字体大小：2em;边距底部：0.75em;}
h3 {font-size:1.5em;line-height:1;margin-bottom:1em;}
为了避免浏览器中的任何差异，我总是在我的类中用零覆盖蓝图值
.my-class-name h1 {margin: 0px;}
因此，结论是 - 如果您不想拥有自己的样式和设计 ->蓝图是你的选择
in addition to Chris Schmitz post - when I use the blueprint CSS I always have a question, should I use 2 or more classnames for one div
or union it in one class
and I always select the second variant,
also I didn't happy with this (using blueprint is requirement)
reset code in blueprint
h1 {font-size:3em;line-height:1;margin-bottom:0.5em;}
h2 {font-size:2em;margin-bottom:0.75em;}
h3 {font-size:1.5em;line-height:1;margin-bottom:1em;}
to avoid any differents in browsers I always ovverride the blueprint values with zero in my classes
.my-class-name h1 {margin: 0px;}
So, conclusion is - if you didn't want to have your styles and design -> blueprint is your choice