CSS Framework Fortunes and Failures with Harry Roberts






SITEPOINT: How did you get into conference talking?




SITEPOINT: Why do you think there’s such a divide between the love ‘em and loathe ‘em camps?

HARRY: This is difficult to answer without being too controversial (and potentially offensive) but I think that, because CSS is so “easy” (note the quotes), everyone and their Mum feel they should have an opinion.


That might seem a little insulting, but it’s important to note that these are very general statements and largely a hypotheses based on anecdotal evidence.






Conversely, and to take it back to the fourth question (the divide between the love ’em and loathe ’em): A developer who strongly criticizes CSS frameworks for their bloat often doesn’t think twice about including all of jQuery when a simple few lines of vanilla JavaScript would suffice.







SITEPOINT: Many thanks, Harry.


Free book: Jump Start HTML5 Basics


  • tex88

    Pretty vague.. I’d like to hear which specific css frameworks he considers to be “poor”, which are “mis-sold”, and which are “the best”. Opinions are fine, and reasons are even better.. but just saying that some are good and some not.. isn’t very helpful or insightful.

    • LouisLazaris

      Well, this was an interview, not a tutorial or an op-ed piece. We can’t force Harry to explain any further than he wants to.

      Unfortunately, it’s a bit of a double-edged sword. He doesn’t name any frameworks, and you’re not happy (and neither are the people who upvoted your comment). But if he did name all the frameworks he didn’t like, then we’d have people commenting about how negative he is, bashing other members of the community.

      I think he handled the situation perfectly. He made it known that there is such a thing as a bad framework.

      That being said, I’m sure if you examined Harry’s own framework and compared it with some others, you’d see what it is he doesn’t like about those others.

  • jokeyrhyme

    My misunderstanding was that I thought this was a discussion about BEM, SMACSS and OOCSS. It was only at the end that I realised this was more about front-end frameworks like Bootstrap, Foundation, Skeleton, etc. :P

    • LouisLazaris

      Yeah, BEM, OOCSS, etc. are usually referred to as “methodologies” not “frameworks”.

  • closdesign

    I just looked at Harry’s framework. I was going to mention doing the same thing. Almost modular like. Importing or using pieces. I find frameworks tend to load ALL their CSS into one sheet and the code is just one behemoth of a CSS file. Not good. If we had multiple CSS files with the elements in each and just import or copy the code from the separate elements we want, seems to make them more modular. Just me though. The basics like Top Nav or a Side Nav, footer, header, slideshows, or grid could all be separate CSS files and just call which ones you needs.

    The only qualm I have with frameworks is that a lot of designers and developers rely too much on them and their websites tend to start looking the same. 3 columns, with a header and footer and a top navigation with a slideshow. They are nice if you want to build a website quickly without any thought behind it because you just plug in the elements or images, but if you really want to push your skills without harming you usability, then use framework parts or modules (header, nav, footer), and let those enhance the site not dictate the design.