I'm getting scared to see that on front page, I'm the kind of guy which could have enough luck to randomly fall into a project where someone used it for real.
Universal.css
81–90 of 118 posts
Re: Universal.css
#82I was about to flip the table before reading the last faq. Good one.
Re: Universal.css
#83I think we should judge a technique in regard to the problems it solves and the ones it creates, not in regard to our understanding of the said technique.
No, it is not the same as using "inline styles" (just think about it). Yes, it reduces CSS scope and bloat in styles sheets. Yes, it breaks the Separation of Concern principle. No, it does not create bloat in the markup. Yes, it forces you to style via markup rather than via a style sheet, etc.
Like with any other technique, choosing to use "Atomic CSS" in a project should be considered in relation to the problems authors have to solve. CSS is a complex matter, there is no one size-fit-all solution and there are not that many solutions either so I think we should think twice before disregarding a tool, any tool.
PS: Yes, I know universal.css is a joke but it is mocking a real/serious approach to big CSS problems.
Re: Universal.css
#84I'm getting scared to see that on front page, I'm the kind of guy which could have enough luck to randomly fall into a project where someone used it for real.
"Dude, I just found the coolest CSS framework, take a look. This is going to solve ALL of our problems!"
I've had this happen a few times with other developers I thought were pretty sharp. The best example is when someone found Dogescript (https://dogescript.com/) and was convinced it was the next big thing. The best part was I didn't have the heart to tell him the truth.
Re: Universal.css
#85They're making fun of Bootstrap, but having classes that allow you to define margins and padding quickly by adding a class is actually really helpful. Of course that shouldn't be expanded to every possible property.
You can use Foundation + sass processor and not need any of that garbage. My website just has nav, main, sidebar, etc. I define what I want into foundation to be mapped to them and the preprocessor creates my minified CSS. http://penguindreams.org/blog/jekyll-3-and-foundation-6/ Adding "row-xx" or whatever to your HTML elements is basically going back to the garbage that was in table based html layouts.
I really don't know how to take your comment...are you suggesting that precompiling and overriding the functionality native to CSS is easier than just using a handful of classnames?
Re: Universal.css
#86This is amazing. I quit a job at a company that did many stupid things, one of which was insist that their home rolled CSS framework did not suck. Said framework was, in all seriousness, exactly this but with shortened, cryptic names. Nightmare.
Ideally, in SMACSS, you could classify all components into their composable parts: a grid width, a title style, a button with a primary style, a button with a secondary style, standard body text, emphasized body text, etc. But most of the time, designers don't know how to stick with a standardized padding and margin, so I find that without exception, an org requires me to develop "cryptic" representations of margin a…
I've had a very different experience with designers. I would say that ~95% of them something is a couple pixels off, a slightly different font size, or a shade off in color, it was a mistake.
Usually a quick follow-up question will reveal the mistake and the designer is happy to make the correction.
This has been my best weapon against CSS bloat.
Re: Universal.css
#87If you don't read the docs fully, everything looks really official with 314 stars social credibility too
Re: Universal.css
#88I am really glad someone has put this together - I was enjoying Harry Roberts talk at RenderConf until he dropped this in our faces: http://csswizardry.com/2016/05/the-importance-of-important/
Utility classes I dislike (mixins plx) and the idea of using important with them is not a design decision I would want to pick up.
I guess my bigger problem is that Harry sells himself as an expert, stands up on stage telling people this is how they should be doing things... and here I am, no book, no stage and my specificity level gets trumped by Harry amongst certain members of my team (despite my years of qualified awesomeness across large scale, popular, public domain sites)
Thought I'd just share that with you :`P
Re: Universal.css
#89This is amazing. I quit a job at a company that did many stupid things, one of which was insist that their home rolled CSS framework did not suck. Said framework was, in all seriousness, exactly this but with shortened, cryptic names. Nightmare.
Ideally, in SMACSS, you could classify all components into their composable parts: a grid width, a title style, a button with a primary style, a button with a secondary style, standard body text, emphasized body text, etc. But most of the time, designers don't know how to stick with a standardized padding and margin, so I find that without exception, an org requires me to develop "cryptic" representations of margin a…
This is weird, because designers I've worked with hate CSS bloat even more than I do, and love things like consistent spacing and typography. The movement towards styleguides has been one of the biggest things happening in design in the last year or so, which is exactly what you're talking about with not writing CSS.
Re: Universal.css
#90(Sorry about that, but we can’t show files that are this big right now.)
Uh oh