[mcallan83]

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.

[owenversteeg]

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.

[mcallan83]

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!

[owenversteeg]

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.

Finally, thank you very much for your feedback!