1. 23
  1.  

  2. 3

    Nice, but there’s not much to it. I guess that’s the point. I like minimalism. And it’s obviously light weight.

    This reminds me a bit of these websites that were going around a while back:

    1. 10

      Better comparisons to this classless CSS framework are:

      1. 1

        Cool, I hadn’t heard of those.

        The first two I linked to are classless though, right?

        1. 2

          the creators of those websites were going for “you can put up a half decent looking webpage without making it heavy with fonts, CSS frameworks, and JS”. You can ofcourse borrow their css files to get a minimalistic styling for the HTML page.

          The two “frameworks” I linked, much like the item under discussion, were designed to be used with semantic HTML without the need to use special classes or div layouts (like you would when using say bootstrap). They also provide styling for most commonly used elements like forms etc.,which the MFW sites lack.

          The good thing about classless/semantic CSS styles (framework is probably too heavy a word to use for a css file), is that you can either hand write HTML or use a generator like pandoc and apply these styles to get a nice layout without worrying about figuring out how to use Bootstrap, Tailwind etc.

          Eg: I use water.css on my website where 90% of styling is from water.css.

    2. 3

      Classless CSS frameworks are pretty much how I wish the world wide web was fully run, except instead of the site owner adding one, the end user chooses one. This would result in pleasant looking and consistent websites which cater to each individual, rather than trying to be a one-size-fits-all (which admittedly is still in general better than more complex designs, as they look fine when overridden and doing so is not difficult).

      This particular framework, for example, doesn’t seem to work so well for me; presumably it’s some quirk of my smallish, 4:3 screen, but there’s a lot of whitespace and very large text which actually makes it a more unpleasant experience than with nothing (or nothing and a max-width). That said, I appreciate the concept, and know some people who would definitely appreciate this design. Good job.

      1. 2

        Oh, personal stylesheets? Like back in the day?

        1. 1

          Yep. If a browser made some themes built in though, and easy to access (for example instead of reader mode), it might result in more uptake.

          And hopefully semantic tags now would make it easier for stylesheets which don’t break on different pages (although I’ve only retroactively played with personal stylesheets, so I’m not entirely sure of what the situation was like back in the day).

        2. 2

          I would also like that very much - end user stylesheets. It would have a lot of accessibility benefits. I don’t think it’s realistic, because the vast majority of website owners are concerned with making their sites distinctive in some way, whether it’s to build their personal visibility or to reinforce their corporate brand. I wish I saw a solution to that.

          1. 2

            I’d like a solution too. I do find it quite strange that many of these sites are so concerned about their brand identity, when so many of the brand identities look identical these days. For me, the closest that I’ve got is RSS feeds, but this obviously works better for some types of content (and websites run by some types of people) than others.

            In some ways, I think that the semantic web concepts would have helped with this, essentially acting as a set of universal APIs. Then an individual website owner could write content with their own specific styles and identity, but anyone else who wanted to could just as easily poll just the data and display it in some other way. Similarly, I always smile when I see a styled feed page, because it shows that someone actually cares a lot about the people who use feeds.

            I suppose the problem with any of this is that it works out worse for the large, centralised companies with all the influence. Maybe one day we’ll make a break for it.

          2. 0

            Pleasant is not always “good” unpleasant is not always “bad”. As a matter of fact “good” is neither pleasant nor unpleasant.

          3. 2

            On Firefox / macOS the (native) checkbox and option thingys are misaligned vertically.

            1. 2

              They’re kind of strange on iOS Safari too: https://imgur.com/a/VMBOdqB

              1. 1

                A patch would be great, I don’t have a Mac.