231–240 of 359 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Any feature is a liability, so it's good to question whether a feature has to be implemented, and whether it should be in this way and position, or maybe somewhere else.
Where is the connection to "well-known websites"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is, where do you draw the line? It's obviously not viable to implement literally every single design imaginable straight in CSS. If I want to do something silly like placing my content on the faces of a hypercube it wouldn't be realistic for me to expect that to be part of CSS. Having me write some JS is completely acceptable - that's what it is for, after all! It's not a matter of "would this be better…
As they explain in the article, a row-less layout with columns is quite common in the non-web world. They acknowledge that some people are arguing that it's not needed because nobody's using it (on the web). Nobody's using it (on the web) because it's not possible in CSS. The argument is that the popularity of the layout in contexts where it's possible is a strong argument for enabling it on the web as well. This is…
Row-less layouts with columns are indeed quite common in the non-web world - see for example newspapers or other dense text. But that can already be done with current CSS features, and the row-first placement makes this proposal completely unsuitable for that. Masonry actively makes that worse, because it screws with the regular reading order.
They argue that nobody is doing it because it can't be done in CSS. I would argue that nobody is doing it because it's a bad idea. We've seen people work around it not being in CSS by using Javascript to make galleries for years now, if there were other use cases they'd surely have done the same?
With the exception of Pinterest-style galleries (and lets be honest, that's not exactly the pinnacle of UX either) I really don't see a widespread use for this feature. Their three other demos sure aren't convincing me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accidentally? How can something be intentionally/ unintentionally popular?
Marketing makes something intentionally popular. Accidentally, seems harder. It kinda smells for people to intentionally make it not popular by actively working against fame, or something like that..
It's not harder; it's the only thing that works for tools. Tools cannot be good for long because of marketing. Marketing is the thin layer of paint over the Ferrari. Very nice paint, but if the car doesn't work or go very fast very quickly then that's that.
Webkit team snorting cocaine? look at this, how intuitive, how readable: grid-template-columns: 14ch repeat(auto-fill, minmax(28ch, 1fr)) 14ch; just throw the whole grid thing out of the window and get on board someone who can create syntax that wouldn't send you to jump off a cliff and feels like it was made by a fellow human being, not an AI controlled robot.
Well, at least show us your ideal replacement for that logic that's more intuitive. Until then, these complaints usually cash out into unfamiliarity + assuming it's very hard to understand if you were you trying to understand it. Declarative UI is a very hard problem, so it's not always going to be `text-decoration: underline`.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Questioning whether something new is actually needed is absolutely worth doing, so long as it’s done respectfully. This is a standard that affects billions of people and many implementations. It’s great to ask if something is really needed or if it’s just adding bloat. We shouldn’t just grow the standard without first asking if the growth and added complexity carry their own weight. If someone proposing something can…
Again: when did "well-known websites use this" become the motivating factor behind standard design? The blink tag was used by well-known website and it's universally recognized as a bad decision.
But what is not fine is trying to exclude people from the conversation and silence them just because you have a disagreement.
Webkit team snorting cocaine? look at this, how intuitive, how readable: grid-template-columns: 14ch repeat(auto-fill, minmax(28ch, 1fr)) 14ch; just throw the whole grid thing out of the window and get on board someone who can create syntax that wouldn't send you to jump off a cliff and feels like it was made by a fellow human being, not an AI controlled robot.
Well, at least show us your ideal replacement for that logic that's more intuitive. Until then, these complaints usually cash out into unfamiliarity + assuming it's very hard to understand if you were you trying to understand it. Declarative UI is a very hard problem, so it's not always going to be `text-decoration: underline`.
If you had showed someone the first bicycle, and it came with 3 differently sized wheels and a spike for a seat, you wouldn't have to provide an "ideal replacement" to know that it was a bad design.
I built a masonry layout with only CSS and HTML 10 years ago. The site is actually still live. A scripting language is used to generate the HTML and CSS based on the dimensions of the images. But the masonry runs left to right not top to bottom.
That's not going to be responsive which is today a must have.
So, the background story is that CSSWG DevRels from browser vendors are debating how to formally include the Masonry layout into CSS, at least since 2020, when Firefox first proposed it. The news here is that people at WebKit decided to push the debate to the public, inviting designers and developers to take some action (“post to social media, write blog posts”), in order to get past this. While it may look just like…
I like grids for pages with content and documentation and such. I don’t like grids for pages of media or other creative content. Cards, flex box, grids, these are all design framework choices and shouldn’t be in CSS spec. We were totally fine with position relative and media-query centric widths and heights. I get that it’s easier to standardize if grids are part of the standard but I miss the days of pages having some creativity in their design. Every site looks the same nowadays.
And before I get downvoted. I have a degree in graphic design. I love CSS and I love the web. Bring back the fun.
So, the background story is that CSSWG DevRels from browser vendors are debating how to formally include the Masonry layout into CSS, at least since 2020, when Firefox first proposed it. The news here is that people at WebKit decided to push the debate to the public, inviting designers and developers to take some action (“post to social media, write blog posts”), in order to get past this. While it may look just like…
CSS Grid is a mistake. Baking in a design philosophy when we had really creative pages without it. I like grids for pages with content and documentation and such. I don’t like grids for pages of media or other creative content. Cards, flex box, grids, these are all design framework choices and shouldn’t be in CSS spec. We were totally fine with position relative and media-query centric widths and heights. I get that…