Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You want enabling CSS selectors, not disabling ones

css-tricks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 120 posts

Re: You want enabling CSS selectors, not disabling ones

#91

Post by wruza »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #73
wruza wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only we had (or display:sizer) element that could expand, disappear on wrap and not count as a regular child (sort of like a space in a text node)… But that would be so '90s.

I really think CSS gap is going to cover most of these needs. Adding decorative nodes to the DOM doesn’t seem like a good solution.

decorative nodes to the DOM doesn’t seem like a good solution

Why? You could add the same constraints to the sizer: min, max, flex shrink/grow, put a line or any other shape in it. It wouldn’t even take a separate “display” mode, just make :row-start, :row-end and :row-wrap pseudoclasses to control collapsibility of regular divs at the sides of a container (or whatever styling you need, anything). Instead they feed us yet another crippled special case with these gaps.

Re: You want enabling CSS selectors, not disabling ones

#92

Post by BongoMcCat »

rocqua wrote: post #89
mninm wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was trying to figure out what font they are using and when I was inspecting the page I found the comment below. I have nothing in particular to say about it. I just thought it was interesting.

Pretty sure that is from the church of satan. Which is not about worshiping satan but more humanist / atheist / there is no god but you should still be a force for good. It's just that their imagery is intentionally quite jarring to christians. To quote the satanists. It is not them who believe in Satan, its the christians who believe in Satan.

As a European, I find it quite amusing that religion is so central to american culture, that they even figured out a way to make a christian version of atheism.

Re: You want enabling CSS selectors, not disabling ones

#93

Post by mobilemidget »

chrisweekly wrote: post #32
dvaun wrote: post #6

I found the linked article "Axiomatic CSS and Lobotomized Owls" to be a decent read. I'm surprised that it hasn't been highly upvoted in the past despite having many submissions to HN. Article: https://alistapart.com/article/axiomatic-css-and-lobotomized... Prev. submissions: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

While "Axiomatic CSS" per se has (unfortunately) not quite (yet?) gone mainstream, its origins -- see https://every-layout.dev -- are a profoundly excellent resource, and have been highly influential.

thanks for the site link, did not have that as a entry on the resource list myself :)

Re: You want enabling CSS selectors, not disabling ones

#94

Post by dairylee »

emi2k01 wrote: post #77
asleepawake wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely worth it. Top 3 books I’ve ever read on web design

May I know what are the other two? I read Every Layout for the past hour and it's good so I'd like to read something else of similar quality in the future. Also, how did you come across those books? I just found out about Every Layout in this thread. I'm not a web developer so I don't know if it was advertised in a web dev forum or what.

Here are some other excellent resources from the authors of Every Layout:

https://inclusive-components.design/

https://cube.fyi/

https://briefs.video/

Re: You want enabling CSS selectors, not disabling ones

#95

Post by jusssi »

BongoMcCat wrote: post #92
rocqua wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure that is from the church of satan. Which is not about worshiping satan but more humanist / atheist / there is no god but you should still be a force for good. It's just that their imagery is intentionally quite jarring to christians. To quote the satanists. It is not them who believe in Satan, its the christians who believe in Satan.

As a European, I find it quite amusing that religion is so central to american culture, that they even figured out a way to make a christian version of atheism.

As a fellow European, I feel we have nothing to be amused about. What the church thinks still has excessive weight in lawmaking and people's opinions. Publicly funded schools have "religion" classes where the local mainstream christianity variant is the main content. And the tax authority is still tasked with collecting the "church tax".

Re: You want enabling CSS selectors, not disabling ones

#96

Post by codedokode »

evan_ wrote: post #36
have_faith wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit easier these days with Grid. You can set grid-template-columns: 1fr; and use gap: 20px; to control the spacing which feels much more natural. You can then pad as you like. edit: realise this is at the end of the article so you probably already know this

`gap` is available on Flexbox in most browsers since earlier this year.

This means that it won't work in a builtin browser of a smartphone made 5 years ago.

I think that average quality websites made for public Internet should use only features that have been supported at least for 5 years in major browsers including mobile. And a high quality site must be usable in 10-years old browser.

Re: You want enabling CSS selectors, not disabling ones

#97

Post by codedokode »

Another bad thing (in my opinion) is "useless" rules. There are at least two kinds of useless rules:

1) rule that does not apply to any element on the page. Such rules only inflate CSS file and waste traffic and CPU cycles to process them

2) rule that is overriden by another rule. Again, it doesn't have any effect on the page and only wastes CPU cycles.

The case 1 happens when styles for all pages are merged into a single file instead of making different bundles for different pages. Both cases happen when using bloated CSS frameworks.

Re: You want enabling CSS selectors, not disabling ones

#98

Post by dotancohen »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #84
dotancohen wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you calculate the contrast ratio?

I use the WebAIM contrast checker: https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ It's basically a measure of perceived brightness. The actual formula involves calculating the relative luminance of the background and foreground colors, where luminance is a value from 0 (darkest) to 1 (lightest), and using the formula (lighter_luminance + 0.05) / (darker_luminance + 0.05) So the highest possible contrast ratio in this…

I see, thank you.

Re: You want enabling CSS selectors, not disabling ones

#99

Post by dsego »

BongoMcCat wrote: post #92
rocqua wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure that is from the church of satan. Which is not about worshiping satan but more humanist / atheist / there is no god but you should still be a force for good. It's just that their imagery is intentionally quite jarring to christians. To quote the satanists. It is not them who believe in Satan, its the christians who believe in Satan.

As a European, I find it quite amusing that religion is so central to american culture, that they even figured out a way to make a christian version of atheism.

How so? Religion is still central in many countries in Europe, eg Croatia, Poland, etc. It's even getting stronger as the populace is leaning more to the right every day. Plenty of religious people in the media here raving against covid vaccines etc.

Re: You want enabling CSS selectors, not disabling ones

#100

Post by rocgf »

dsego wrote: post #99
BongoMcCat wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a European, I find it quite amusing that religion is so central to american culture, that they even figured out a way to make a christian version of atheism.

How so? Religion is still central in many countries in Europe, eg Croatia, Poland, etc. It's even getting stronger as the populace is leaning more to the right every day. Plenty of religious people in the media here raving against covid vaccines etc.

You're definitely right technically.

The problem is that Europe is split up into dozens of countries with very somewhat different values and cultures, so whenever you say "In Europe X happens", then you can always invoke some version of your argument.

Europe is France, Netherlands, Albania, Moldova. All of these are very different in various statistics.

Post reply on HN