Min looks like a nice attempt at a lightweight framework, but it is so minimal that I am not sure I could ever find a use case for it. One could easily start with something like normalize and get something up and running just as quickly as implementing Min. I like Bootstrap because I can rapidly lay out an entire application interface in minutes. From there, I can digg into the LESS to customize components and remove the stuff I don't need. Sure, you end up with a larger CSS file, but if optimized it isn't much of an issue.
Well, Min 2.0 will be out soon (a few days) and will include everything that Bootstrap does and more. I guarantee that laying something out using only Normalize will be harder than using just Min. For one, Min is about the same size as Normalize and it supports more browsers (IE5.5+). It also provides buttons, a grid, a navbar, etc.
Try replicating Min's navbar quickly (the v2.0 one) and you will end up with tons of compatibility problems, strange bugs, and you'll give up quickly. There's a reason there are only five CSS frameworks (Bootstrap, Foundation, uikit, Ionic, Min) that actually have a working navbar. That's out of about 100 CSS frameworks total. All of those five frameworks, except Min, have a company, thousands of stars, and tons of contributors behind them.
I don't count Gumby as its navbar has some weird bugs, plus it uses display: table. I don't count Cascade and Ink as neither work consistently on Android.
I use Bootstrap without jQuery all the time, so that is not true. I also make custom builds for just the stuff I need to keep file size down. Anyways, I just looked at Min and was a bit disappointed. The demo page has the look and feel of a framework that might have existed 10 years ago -- it doesn't look polished at all and I would never even attempt to try it out based on that demo. The 2 sites built with the framework also look about 10 years old. I realize it is a lightweight framework, but so is Pure and Topcoat, and their examples look a lot better. Sure they may be a bit bigger than 995 bytes, but with high speed internet and LTE, that is less important than it was in the past. I'd rather have a larger CSS file and a better looking site.
Regarding jQuery, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it required for dropdowns and responsive navbars?
Regarding Min, I'm wondering what you think looks 2004-ish about it. If it's the buttons, those are in for a change; please cast your vote in the button design thread here: https://github.com/OwenVersteeg/min/issues/6 If it's anything else, just let me know (via an issue or a comment) and I can fix it. I'm always open to feedback.
Also, a substantial portion of people still have slow internet speeds (example: me.) It's common knowledge that if a website is too slow people will just leave, and for lots of websites an extra few percent of users would make a difference.
It is required for dropdowns and the responsive navbar.
Also, I didn't mean to be talking down on your framework. I have personally never made a front end framework or released any sort of open source project, so it is cool that you have done that. All I am really trying to say is there is a tradeoff between file size and what a framework can offer.
You have chosen to go the smallest possible file size route, which is cool, but I would never use it in it's current state. The page advertises support for IE5.5 and it shows. It looks like something that was developed when IE5.5 was around. It is easy to support a single text input in IE5, but try building out a complex form in CSS and see what happens in old IE. Also, nothing looks finely polished. I just see a bunch of colored rectangles filled with text. There are no examples of typography beside the header tags. The padding\margins on buttons and alerts look funny. The forms are completely lacking. There is an issue with the navbar where the entire thing slides up a pixel or two when the dropdowns appear. The icons are just standard unicode characters that really have little use on the web and look dated. Again, I don't mean to knock your framework, I just think it needs a bit of polish and it is unfair to say it offers most of what bootstrap does. I'd also highly recommend you put normalize in there.
I'll defiantly keep an eye out for version 2! Good luck!
Hmm. I'll add a better main/examples page for v2, and some parts are going to be spruced up. The icons have to be unicode due to size restrictions, unfortunately. I don't see an issue with the padding/margins for the buttons and alerts, and I can't reproduce the navbar issue. Could you take a screenshot and describe what you think it should look like?
For the forms and the alerts, I'm not sure what I should add. A border-radius? A shadow? Maybe I should open a voting issue similar to the button thread.
Regarding normalize.css, I'm not sure why I would add it - Min already covers most of what it does and I'm not sure what benefit I'd get from it, seeing as adding it'd double the size of Min.
I like the links on the right, but I think the main navbar should be affixed. Having to scroll all the way up to get back to it is a pain, especially on the longer pages.
Great site! I like the minimalist look! Here are a few thoughts:
Since you are going responsive, you may want to look into doing a mobile first design. It is a lot easier to get your content looking good on a small screen and then slowly work your way up to a full screen experience. Going from full screen down to mobile is a lot harder. You will end up with more code, and find yourself fighting your existing styles to get things working on the small screen. Since you are using bootstrap, I'd recommend you use the built in grid system to help with this. (I fought grid systems for years... now, I wouldn't build a site without them.)
Another area I would concentrate on is typography. Choosing matching fonts can be tricky. A good rule of thumb is to pick two fonts that really contrast each other. In your case, the fonts basically look the same. Try picking a serif font for headings and sans-serif for body copy or the other way around. Google "font pairings" for more examples. I'd also bump up the body font size a bit and increase the line height. Aim for no more than 10 words per line for the best readability. (HN doesn't follow this and it is a pain reading long comments!) Again, Bootstrap has great defaults for type. I'd recommend sticking with them at first and then tweaking things as you finalize your layout.
Finally, I'd simplify your effects a bit. Every animation should serve a purpose and enhance the user experience. It is fun to dig in and make things move, but if not done properly, they become a huge turnoff. The hard part is making them feel natural and finely polished. Many times very subtle animations do so much more that large ones. Think "pat on the back" vs. "punch to the face". (Not saying your site is a punch to the face.... just repeating some advice a designer once gave me.) As your skills improve, you can add more complex animations and effects that add value to your site.
Overall you did great for your first site. Digging in and trying new things is the best way to learn. If you ever need assistance with anything, feel free to reach out.
I work in Batavia and it was nice to see this make the front page of Hacker News.
Just wanted to point out that the hearing taking place tonight will probably be recorded by BATV (http://batv.us/) and available to stream later in the week. Once the recording is posted, I will update with a direct link.
I am told the video of tonight's hearing will be put up on YouTube on Thursday at https://www.youtube.com/user/BATV1017. If I hear anything else, I will post here.
