Menu Search
Jump to the content X X
SmashingConf London Avatar

We use ad-blockers as well, you know. We gotta keep those servers running though. Did you know that we publish useful books and run friendly conferences — crafted for pros like yourself? E.g. our upcoming SmashingConf London, dedicated to all things web performance.

Rapid Prototyping For Any Device With Foundation

ZURB are well-known for their wireframing and prototyping tools and in this post they present their recent tool, Foundation, a framework to help you build prototypes and production code that’s truly responsive.

You’ve probably already heard about responsive design, which is website design that responds to the device constraints of the person viewing it. It’s a hot topic right now, and with good reason: alternative devices outsell desktop PCs 4 to 1 already, and within three years more Internet traffic in the US will go through mobile devices1 than through laptops or desktops.

Further Reading on SmashingMag: Link

All of this is forcing a convergence on what Jeremy Keith calls the “one Web6”: a single Web that doesn’t care what device you’re on, how you’re viewing content or how you’re interacting with it.

What we found at ZURB was that while the concept of one Web is strong and the need for responsive websites great, the tools to help us quickly build that way just didn’t exist. That’s why we built Foundation7, a framework to help you build prototypes and production code that’s truly responsive.

The Problem with Global CSS Link

For years at ZURB, we used and refined a global CSS file that included a nice 960 grid, typography styles, buttons and other common elements. The trouble with our global CSS was that none of these pieces were written to be used by others, so they required a good deal of ramping up and training, with no great documentation.


Our CSS style guide had a lot of good global elements, but it wasn’t well documented, and it certainly wasn’t ready for other devices.

The bigger problem was that it wasn’t designed to be responsive or mobile-friendly in any way. We were stuck in the same rut that a lot of designers are in: creating a 1000-pixel-wide canvas, putting a 960 grid on it, and calling it a day. Our tools were built to support that workflow. So, we rewrote it into Foundation, a framework for everyone to be able to rapidly prototype in a responsive way.


Foundation is an MIT-licensed framework that includes a nestable arbitrary-width responsive grid; mobile styles, buttons and typography; layout affordances such as tabs and pagination; forms; and useful JavaScript plugins. We wrote or packaged all of these pieces to achieve a few goals:

  1. Quickly train new designers, inside and outside ZURB, to use a common framework;
  2. Rapidly prototype websites for desktops and any mobile device;
  3. Easily customize and complete the prototype to turn it into production code for particular projects or clients.

The first goal can’t be overstated; the value of having a single set of styles and best practices that the team can iterate on as a whole and communicate to our clients is tremendous. We can ramp up new designers much more quickly, build things faster and work together more easily. On one recent project, we even got a volunteer sufficiently up to speed on Foundation that we could collaborate on code — and it took only about 15 minutes.

So, How Does Foundation Work? Link

The core of Foundation can be summed up in a few points:

  • A 12-column, percentage-based grid with an arbitrary maximum width.
    The grid can be nested and used for quite complex layouts, and it works all the way back to IE 7. The grid reshuffles itself for smaller devices.
  • Image styles that disregard pixels.
    Images in Foundation are scaled by the grid to different widths.
  • UI and layout elements.
    Foundation includes common pieces such as typography and forms, as well as tabs, pagination, N-up grids and more.
  • Mobile visibility classes.
    Rapidly prototyping is partly about having built-in functionality to tailor the experience. Foundation lets you very quickly hide and show elements on desktops, tablets and phones.

We deliberately built Foundation as a starting point, not as a style guide. We’ve included some styles to help you rapidly build something clickable and usable, but not something stylistically complete. Everything in Foundation is meant to be customized, including button styles, form styles (even custom radio, checkbox and select elements), typography, and layout elements such as tabs.

The Grid Link

A lot of grids are floating around, including some very good ones right here on Smashing Coding9. Grid systems have a few issues, though, and we built Foundation to tackle them… well, some of them.

Fluidity Link

One of the critical pieces of device-agnostic design is having a fluid layout that conforms to the size (and orientation) of the device. Foundation’s grid is completely fluid, with percentage-based widths and margins, and it works all the way back to IE 7 (but not IE 6 — philosophically speaking, acting like IE 6 doesn’t exist makes sense at this point). The HTML markup is pretty simple. Here’s an example of the grid in use, where we nest it for a more complex layout:

<div class="row">
  <div class="eight columns">
	<div class="row">
	  <div class="six columns">
	    <h5>Another Section (.six.columns)</h5>
	  <div class="six columns">
	    <h5>Another Section (.six.columns)</h5>
    <p>Now the nested row has been closed, and we're back to the original eight-column section.</p>

You can check out the above code on this example page10.


Here are some of the built-in grid constructs, all of which scale with the browser window.

Responsiveness Link

The second critical piece is for the grid to be able to easily adapt to small devices and their unique constraints. We tackled this in three ways:

  • On small devices (such as phones), the grid simply stacks vertically, with every column running the full width.
  • We’ve also included block-grid classes, which are definitions for ULs that can be two-up through five-up and that remain a grid even on very small devices.
  • And we have mobile visibility classes. These are a group of styles that enable you to quickly try things out by hiding and showing elements on different kinds of devices. You can attach classes like so:
<div class="hide-on-phones">
	<p>This is a paragraph that we don't want to see on small devices.</p>
<div class="show-on-phones">
	<p>This paragraph will be shown only on phones, not on tablets or desktops.</p>

Another interesting use for the classes is to prototype a common mobile consideration: placing mobile navigation at the bottom, as opposed to its more common placement at the top. You could do this:

<nav class="hide-on-phones">
    <li><a href=#>…<a></li>
    <li><a href=#>…<a></li>
    <li><a href=#>…<a></li>
<nav class="show-on-phones">
  <dl class="mobile tabs">
    <dd><a href="#">…</a></dd>
    <dd><a href="#">…</a></dd>
    <dd><a href="#">…</a></dd>


Foundation lets you write code once and show it on different devices easily.

Semantics Link

This one is tricky. A very compelling case is to be made that grid systems are by nature not semantic. This is partly true; they’re still descriptive of their function, but they do break the separation of data and display.

We didn’t want to base the Foundation framework on another extension, such as LESS12. LESS is a great tool enabling you to use variables, shortcuts and more in your CSS, but we didn’t want to have to rely on it and add another barrier to using Foundation. The recent article we mentioned above actually fixed the data and display issue of grids by using LESS, which is awesome, but Foundation doesn’t fix that. Here’s why…

All of these methods are a stopgap. The replacement technique might come out next month or next year, but really all of these tools will change drastically in the very near future. Tools like LESS help us get a little closer to a very clean solution, but at a higher technology and learning cost. We wanted Foundation to be the fastest way to prototype for all kinds of devices, so we paid a small price for truly separated markup.

Rapid Prototyping Examples Link

Let’s look at a recent example for which Foundation was used. Every year, we do a 24-hour design marathon for a local non-profit, usually producing new marketing collateral and a new website. This year, we chose Rebekah Children’s Services, a great organization that helps with adoptions and takes care of disadvantaged kids.

This year, we wanted to build a website that was really responsive, and we had very little time to do it. Using just Foundation, we started prototyping the website based on some sketches we had done. In two hours, we managed to build this prototype13.


Using Foundation, we built the prototype on the left in two hours (including every screen), and then started modifying it until it became the final website on the right.

It’s not terribly pretty, but it did give us something we could click around in, add copy to and iterate on. In the prototype, we used only a bare minimum of custom styles to more accurately represent the intended visuals.

Once we completed the prototype, we were able to complete the visual design and apply it to the existing Foundation code base to produce the final website15. The final website retains all of Foundation’s framework, with the new styles applied on top of it.

How to Further Tailor the Experience Link

We recently launched an app through which to give traditional design feedback on mockups and websites. It’s called Spur16, and it has been great fun for us; not only is it in our wheelhouse (for design feedback), but building a responsive Web app was an awesome opportunity.

Spur has a number of tools and actions, as well as some simple forms and a fairly complex JavaScript- and HTML-loading animation. Adapting all of this to mobile devices could have been really painful, but by starting with Foundation, we cut down on that considerably and prototyped the app quickly.


Spur on a desktop is different than Spur on a mobile device such as an iPhone.

Spur helped us get more comfortable with the constraints of a given device, including screen size, orientation, tap target size and copy. Spur is simpler on smaller devices, but it’s not stripped down. You can still capture a page, view it through the various filters, and share it with someone else.

Rapid Prototyping Is Required Now Link

The days of creating a blank Photoshop canvas and laying down a 960 grid are over, even if some of us are still working in that shared fantasy world. Mobile devices — or, let’s just say, devices beyond just laptops and desktops — are already prevalent and will only become more ubiquitous.

Don’t build a desktop website that’s pixel-perfect before thinking about other devices; get used to designing for several different sizes, and then quickly prototype your design to get a feel for the flow, function and interaction.

We built Foundation to help us do this faster and to develop better websites and apps for us and our clients. We feel so strongly about the need for this that Foundation is MIT-licensed and completely free to use, forever. If you try it out and have success with it, let us know18. We’d love to hear about it, just as we’d love to hear about bugs or issues that you’ve run into.

We’re excited about this watershed moment in Web design (and in connectivity and data availability), and you should be, too: our industry will change more in the next three years than it has in its entire history. We hope this helps.


Footnotes Link

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17
  18. 18

↑ Back to top Tweet itShare on Facebook

ZURB is a close-knit team of interaction designers and strategists that help companies design better products & services through consulting, products, education, books, training and events. Since 1998 ZURB has helped over 75+ clients including: Facebook, eBay, NYSE, Yahoo, Zazzle, Playlist, Britney Spears, among others.

  1. 1

    Great post and great framework but I don’t think it’s a great approach to hide elements via css, viewing it from a performance perspective.

    Responsive is great but still limited. Mobile must be faster and faster and hiding is not the solution.

    • 2

      Jonathan Smiley

      October 25, 2011 7:41 am

      Andrea, you’re correct that hiding elements via CSS isn’t ideal – however if you’re trying to build quickly the tradeoff is fairly minimal, the hit for pure text is pretty low (and you can avoid creating separate desktop and mobile sites).

      There’s a lot that can be done to make responsive design even faster, much of it back-end, server-side stuff that Foundation doesn’t touch on. Good point though and something everyone should be aware of – there’s no silver bullet :)

    • 3

      Also, images are just being scaled down, so on the mobile device you are still downloading the full size image which is a bit of a waste. You would definitely need to have a mobile version server side.

      • 4

        What you should try to do is deliver low quality images and a cut down version of the page by default. Use Javascript/CSS to then load in high quality images for large screen devices, and call in features of the page for larger screens.

        Progressive enhancement?

        • 5

          Delivering different quality images to match the screen size is totally the right way to do it, and Scott Jehl has a great backend solution for that here:

          Foundation just uses the provided image so that you can quickly create a responsive prototype without having to create different images sizes. When you are ready to go to production, you should absolutely be using something like Response Images to minimize image load time on mobile devices.

      • 6

        This may be an issue of prioritizing design and development. When prototyping, worrying about different size images will have a major effect on iteration timelines. Once actual development begins, this functionality can be baked into the site’s back-end. Most of my development is in Drupal, where it’s easy to set up processes for serving different images to the appropriate user type. It can be done for other major CMS, as well as custom solutions.

    • 7

      Nene Odonkor

      April 28, 2012 2:00 pm

      This is one issue I have with Responsive design. Downloading stuff onto your mobile phone only for it to be hidden from the user. So it means I wasted download time which will cost me. Why don’t you guys create a script that will determine what device is trying to access your website. Then if the script detects it is a mobile device then all the divs with the class ‘hide-on-phones’ will not load the associated content. Another way is to create two separate CSS sheets for the same content and have the script determine which one to load depending on the device requesting for the webpage.

      RESPONSIVE DESIGN SHOULD NOT ONLY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SCREEN SIZE BUT ALSO DOWNLOAD SPEED. Therefore, designs should know what to load and what not to load to fit into the device.

  2. 8

    Wow! I’ll soon start coding my revised portfolio, perfect timing team ZURB!!

  3. 9

    Really nice work. But now I’m in a big dilemma whether to go for bootstrap by twitter or foundation. Both are equally promising. Will try out foundation in my next project.

    Keep up the good work @zurb!

    • 10

      i left Twitter bootstrap and now I’m using Foundation in my new project, its awesome.

      • 11

        Bootstrap is still unbeatable for backend applications where you deal with a lot of forms and responsiveness is not so important.
        For the frontend I think that there is a lot of better frameworks than Bootstrap and Foundation seems to be one of them.

    • 12

      If you want something easier and simpler, use Foundation. You will get started in a small amount of time. IMO, Foundation is good for websites. I switched from Bootstrap to Foundation mainly for its flexibility and ease of use.

      If you think you need more functionality and your project has ‘app’ nature, go for Bootstrap. Bootstrap is more popular and you will find more resources online. Google ’20 resources bootstrap’. I wish Foundation had such articles, too. :D

  4. 13

    Nice to see. Not so nice after a weekend where I built responsiveness and nested responsive grid in Twitter Bootstrap (along with some other funky bits).. :(

    well, more inspiration on methodology I guess.. ;)

  5. 14

    A few questions, is the orbit plugin responsive? Also, am I going to be able to implement ajax content loading without any problems? Absolutely love this framework.

    • 15

      The version of Orbit in Foundation is responsive yes. We are currently working on porting those changes back into the stand alone Orbit plugin.

      Ajax content loading will work fine so long as you avoid using the new HTML5 tags (nav, section, etc.). We include the HTML5shiv in foundation to ensure that the new HTML5 tags work in older browsers, but that script does not work for content that is loaded dynamically. Nothing in Foundation requires using HTML5 tags, so just avoid them if you are loading dynamic content.

  6. 16

    I am learning about responsive design and think that this is pretty darn cool. Are there any tutorials to show me how to use this? This is new to me.

  7. 17

    “our industry will change more in the next three years than it has in its entire history”

    That, my friends, is a profound statement. Wow.

  8. 18

    taper roller bearings

    October 25, 2011 7:09 pm

    I going to be able to implement ajax content loading without any problems?

  9. 20

    Is it only me that is just not feeling the whole responsive thing that everyone is talking about? It’s always about easy and quick quick.

    It’s like buying a ferrari, but also want to go off-road with it. Sure you can put soms dirt-tyres on it, but it will still not perform as well as a car created for off-road.

    If a company or a person wants a good mobile version, then create a seperate, designed for mobile website.

    • 21

      @alex: a ‘good mobile version’ for what device? A Smartphone? Yeah, thats cool. What happens when someone with an iPad or a larger device views the website? Viewing the same ‘good mobile version’? Probably looks crap an a larger device then. Fluid designs are best because there are tons of devices out there, all with different screen sizes. Coding a page for every single device? Thats no fun!

      ok, maybe we could do this with a 4-paged-website. For desktop 4 pages, smartphone 4 pages, pad 4 pages (at least). So that’s 16 pages to code for now.
      If there’s a 20-pages-website, you would have to code 80 pages. Thats really no fun.

      With a fluid website you only have 1 html page – css and js do the rest for you. I rather prefer this way… ;)

      I’m currently working on a very complex website with 4 navigation levels etc. I’m so happy to see a nice boilerplate merged with a fluid grid system, well done ZURB, what a nice morning :)

      And yes, my question too dear ZURB-Team: what about ajax content loading?

      • 22

        @mono, i’m guessing you did not understand what i meant. But ofcourse: Ipad is a totaly different thing, but let’s put them into the tablet category.
        Yes different that a smartphone you’re correct! And exactly that my friend, is just my point.

        And yes! different things should be designed for tablets than for smarthphones!

        And coding is the least of the worries, just thinking about a good functional layout is the most work.

        But hey, if everyone wants to have all kinds of semi-semi-semi websites so they have to pay less and lazy coders have to work less just go ahead!

        Maybe i’m the only one, and the only one with clients that understand one should always have the best possible experience, so that if you have to go that extra mile: we GO that extra mile.

        Too expensive? Well OK you got me there! Go responsive, there you have it!

        • 23

          euhm.. responsive design is exactly that.. bringing the best experience to the device..

          and it’s certainly *not* for lazy coders.. au contraire..

          • 24

            Yes it is in a certain way, but definitely not the best, better.. but not the best. No mather how you bring it: NEVER the BEST possible experience.

      • 25

        @mono, I completely agree with you, coding close to a hundred pages when all you really need is one html page that handles all devices and screen sizes is definitely the way to go.

  10. 27

    Well, nobody forces us to optimize our work. Going that extra mile is fine, but why walk an extra mile when there’s only 200m on a different way?

    I think that has nothing to do with laziness. Coders who use LESS (yeah, even less!) or other tools that have been developed for our needs, as now this neat fluid grid, use it because they want to optimize their workflow. And of course, save some time. Good for the coder, good for the client. If you got more time, you can work at more projects. …or go out with the dog :)

  11. 29

    The same mold = the same design = poor and sad web.

  12. 30

    It was of common practice for me to write multiple css files for different devices (or in-file hide and show classes) but I just learned two or three new tricks that might solve some problems I encountered before in an easier way.

    Thanks for the post!!

  13. 31

    Matthew Votsikas

    October 26, 2011 3:04 am

    I like the idea, but have concerns about accessibility. A screen reader’s gonna have a nightmare deducing whether to read hide-on-phones or show-on-phones

    • 32

      Jonathan Smiley

      October 26, 2011 9:31 am

      Excellent point. I’ve created an issue on Github for us to investigate this and see if there’s a way we can resolve this. Thanks for mentioning this!

    • 33

      That’s a good point, we trade off accessibility and page size for rapid prototyping.

      The idea being you need to get to a solution quickly and see that solution on multiple devices. After some iteration when you have a mature solution you can replace hide-on-phones with server-side code that does not render these elements at all.

      • 34

        Jonathan Smiley

        October 26, 2011 9:55 pm

        One of our buddies on Github actually answered this for us: elements hidden either through display:none (like Foundation uses) or visibility:hidden are ignored by screen readers.

  14. 35

    I will give it a try. Also, it would be amazing to be able to see that “Zurb Style Guide” online as study materials.

  15. 36

    Have studied it some more last night.. and I wonder if there might be a followup article on this, explaining why they did what they did.

    Some things make sense, some I find odd.. e.g. the font-resize to 62.5%. Seeing a lot of good practices along with some that ‘I think’ are not, is a bit confusing..

    • 37

      Google “font 62.5” for an explanation of why that font resize is chosen; it has to do with making sure of a default font size where 1em is a known number of pixels.

      Here is a snippet from an A List Apart comment, “I’ve always followed the 62.5% method – setting your body to have a font size of 62.5% means that any browser where the user hasn’t deliberately* changed their default font settings will set 1em equal to 10px.”

      • 38

        Yeah, I know why and how it’s done, believe me, read my fair share articles.

        But I see a lot of people move away from that technique, leaving body at 100%, so wondering why Zurb still does it.. ? Cause, on the other hand, they use rem, a relatively new technique… It’s that kind of stuff that confuses me, and just want to know what reasoning was behind those choices..

  16. 39

    Mike Malphurs

    October 26, 2011 5:10 am

    Great post… This helps answer the biggest issue a business owner faces with responsive design: The time it takes to build a responsive site.

    In a perfect world, yes… We could build a site to scale to any and every device. But, as a business owner it is nearly impossible to do this when you have ten websites that clients are screaming to get out the door.

    From my perspective, the answer is either:
    1) Build a mobile version and a desktop version
    2) Charge more and do a responsive design
    3) Not worry about mobile users at all

    Again, #2 is best practice, but also a best-case scenario. Unfortunately, #1 or #3 is “the norm” for most clients who simply won’t be educated or don’t care to be.

  17. 40

    Why did you decide using pixels instead of em units? You aren’t responsive just because you are using a fluid grid.

    • 41

      Jonathan Smiley

      October 26, 2011 9:57 pm

      Are you referring to the typography? We’re actually using a combinations of pixel sizes for backwards-compatibility as well as rems, or root ems, which carry the benefit of ems without the cascading size issues they have.

  18. 42

    I’ve been looking for simple, straightforward frameworks (mainly ‘cos I hate styling forms) for a few days now, and I’m glad I found this one. Definitely using it in my next project.

  19. 43

    Is it me or the code in the first example (“Fluidity”) is not properly indented?

  20. 44

    Really cool, just downloaded it. I am impressed by this take on going back to fluid layout that can be used for all platforms and I saw the little note about IE on one of the CSS files lol.

    But it is not working properly on IE7,8. Now I am sure I can probably go in there and fix those layout issues when developing the site and of course I believe this is still a early version but let me say this. Zurb TYSFM! I am glad someone is making time out of their busy schedule to help standardize a universal workflow and this is one step closer.

    • 45

      Jonathan Smiley

      October 26, 2011 9:58 pm

      If you could, can you let us know what you’re seeing broken in IE7/8 on our Github issues page? Or just contact us through the contact address on the Foundation site. We’ve tested on those browsers (despite our distaste, which you noticed) and we’d like to get that fixed up. Thanks!

      • 46

        I have several issues with IE8 too, trying to figure out what’s the point there…

  21. 47

    I’m not a designer but are interested in this to deal with some basic design things myself. but isn’t this using presentational classes, which is universally considered a bad practice. If you ever want to redesign, you will have to change your HTML as well?

  22. 48


    My developer friend pointed me in this articles direction as for our next project he would like to implement this.

    Only issue is I have no idea what grid I am designing to! I’ve looked at the CSS (Not much of a coder) and can’t get my head around this.

    Am I right in thinking this framework is more of a prototype for devs and not much of a production tool for web designers? I am hoping not as he seemed quite keen to use it and I feel a bit of a let down not being able to design for it..

    • 49

      It appears to me as if tools like this have an assumption about the present and future state of web design: that the designer and the coder are the same person.

      Foundation is a tool for designing in the browser.

  23. 50

    Hi! Nice framework – the only question I have is why you transition straight to a single column layout when the res jumps below 800px wide? I guess you’re assuming that such a res means the device is small, a mobile phone I guess? In a browser is looks pretty weird as everything is reeaaallly stretched. Why not go to a double column layout, then a single when the res gets smaller? Your Soapbox web site is a good example, you jump to the single column and everything is massively stretched, when I would have thought two columns would produce a smoother transition?

    I guess you guys are figuring that device wise, anything with a sub 800px wide res is going to be down at 320px ish (iPhone example) so the stretching isn’t really an issue.

    • 51

      That’s true, doesn’t look very pretty. But I think these 3 steps are pre-made from zurb. You can easily add your own media-queries for resolutions between these 3 to get a smoother transition…

  24. 52

    – “within three years more Internet traffic in the US will go through mobile devices than through laptops or desktops.”

    Maybe, but it only says so. It doesn’t state how much of these traffic are used for web, how much for mobile apps, how much for music or video streaming, etc.

    Don’t get me wrong, I do agree with responsive designs, but probably the correct reason is that we need a simple solution to cater multiple platforms.

    Just my 2 cents.

  25. 53

    I’d be keen to see some examples of applications of responsive / adaptive design or a hybrid of the two which addresses that deals with some of the commercial needs of sites. There’s often restrictions set by advertising sales deparyments with requirement to serve leaderboard and MPU ad units to pages. These often dictate somewhat the layout of the page.

  26. 54

    Looks quite limited and moreover looks like the wrong way to build websites. It is at least naive to believe you can create one design that will multiply perfectly in several sub-designs to fit all possible screens. Tablets and desktops/laptops can be easily placed in the some category because what is really important is the screen resolution – you have some amount of info and you have to put it on a specific screen. So any design made with the idea of 1000px width will fit perfectly on 99% of the tablets. As for mobile devices – you simple create a different layout for them, because you need to optimize your content to a special layout for smartphones. Trying to get every possible device coverage is simply stupid and the final result will be quite likely a disaster

  27. 55

    My biggest concern with using this, is the semantic trade-off. How much of impact will this cause on the sites accessibility and seo ranking?

  28. 56

    Michael Imstepf

    October 28, 2011 11:34 am

    Great framework and good post, thanks for both. Is there any benefit in integrating it into

  29. 57

    Is it just me or is anyone a bit overwhelmed with what feels like a constant stream of frameworks, languages, libraries, plugins and tools. Too bad I have to work otherwise I might have time to keep up with everything. Currently I am using Compass, SASS, and Webputty, and HTMLBoilerplate.

    I was thinking HTMLBoilerplate was pretty much best practices at this point as long as you are trimming out things you aren’t using in a project. Foundation sounds great but how am I supposed to integrate with Boilerplate…

    • 58

      Yes! I think if we were to actually do everything that we’re being told we should be it would be absurd, not to mention prohibitively time consuming. One of the great attractions of the web for me has always been the accessibility of developing for it, but I’m getting a growing feeling that the gap between your average run of the mill web developer and the high end (hang out at conferences all the time) ‘super devs’ is increasing to a detrimental level. Some of these frameworks make a lot of sense – some save time, some are easy and some are not. I think a developer needs to figure out what works best for them and for their company and not fixate on what is and isn’t considered ‘best practise’. There’s a large segment of the community so obsessed with best practice and improving the process that it’s beginning to make web development look distinctly unattractive to those looking in from the outside. There are a lot of really smart people working within the web, but sometimes they’re so caught up in their own cleverness that they never stop to think of the broader impact all this stuff can have. I’m involved in traditional software development as well as web dev and there’s a marked difference between the two, namely that the traditional desktop stuff is starting to look like the easier/more accessible of the two, which let’s face it, is quite a scary prospect…

  30. 59

    Hello, fellow web designers!

    I think you might find relevant our newest project — where we provide maybe the easiest user experience with embedding screenshots into various browsers’ skins as well as mobile devices (iphone, ipad, average android phone).

    We are very proud to present it, and I hope Screenshot Builder will be useful in your everyday work.

    Also, any feedback and/or bug reports are very appreciated!

  31. 60

    Ok I really like these frame works, but I was taught over and over by other designers that it’s BAD to use presentational classes in your html. Are we all agreeing that it’s fine to use things like “six columns”?

  32. 61

    Anyone implement foundation on wordpress, share to us please.. or it’s a bad idea ?

  33. 62

    Windo, check out and you’ll find a link to which is a starter theme for WordPress.

  34. 63

    Nick Plekhanov

    November 12, 2011 6:38 am

    Wow. That’s what i was looking for…. Thanks guys for that great framework

    But i have one suggestion:
    Can you add a feature to change layout type on fly (i.e. from fluid to fixed width one) on fly (i.e. by changing class name from container to container-fluid ) like did in Twitter Bootstrap. That would be a great addition! We often in need of that feature, as the final website design can change in every time…

    And a quick question please: what’s the supported browsers list? Can’t find it.

    Thanks again.

  35. 64

    Thierry Koblentz

    December 5, 2011 3:05 pm

    I do not understand why people would use such framework. If it does not support IE6 it does not solve a problem, it ignores a big one.

    When I asked Matt Kelly (from Zurb) why they chose to ignore IE6 he told me it was because IE6 does not support float (sic). That says it all. :-(

    • 65

      Or is it because IE6 is dead. IE6 is dead.

    • 66

      Use the chrome frame if you want to give ie 6 users an option. See HTML5 boilerplate’s doc for how they do that.

    • 67

      i really cant understand why people still clings to such old browsers… even microsoft declared ie6 dead loooong ago (ie7 will die soon too and hope 8 and 9 does too). Try google chrome, its fast and reliable in old and modern computers, i dont really recommend you firefox(or should i say frozenturtle?) as it is now, its slow and crashes a lot, i also like Opera, its becoming quite nice… but yeah, as today…google chrome is the king :)

  36. 68

    Stephan Eggermont

    March 30, 2012 7:37 am

    Can we have decent results on a large screen too? 1000px max is not responsive at all, it is netbook compatibility mode. Show me something that works at 2560*1600 too

  37. 69

    I like this, a lot – you could do some interesting designs with this with minmal fuss however one issue I do have is that with so much features the resulting HTML could be bloated, let’s imagine for one moment someone has a lot of content for differing devices?

    They use the CSS classes to show/hide specific content for each device, that I feel should be down to the developer to manage, not a designer. Normally if you have numerous devices, such as mobile, you fork the mobile site onto it’s own (sub) domain.

    But I suppose you do need to cater for everyone however they intend to use the framework.

  38. 70

    My only doubt for this framework was about no using html5 elements but reading the post and the comments i have understood why

  39. 71

    The only thing that looks interesting about foundation is the grid and orbit, i prefer twitter bootstrap 2 for everything else (foundation base styles are horrible, i know its css and i can change it…but you should make it more appealing).


↑ Back to top