OOCSS Separation of Container and Content? - css

Question: Is the second OOCSS principle really valid?
According to the OOCSS second principle you're not supposed to have location dependent styles:
Quote from https://github.com/stubbornella/oocss/wiki
Essentially, this means “rarely use location-dependent styles”. An object should look the same no matter where you put it. So instead of styling a specific h2 with .myObject h2 {...}, create and apply a class that describes the h2 in question, like h2 class="category".
Lets take a practical example of this. Say I have a standard 2.0 setup with a normal body (white background) and a huge footer (black background). In the body we have black links and in the footer of course we need white. Isn't the simplest and most intuitive way to achieve this simply to:
a{ color: #000; }
.footer a{ color: #FFF; }
If I where to follow OOCSS principles I'd have to first create a class:
.inverted{ color: #FFF; }
Then proceed to add that class to every link I want inverted. That seems like a hassle.
Isn't the purpose of the whole language that styles are made to Cascade?
Am I misunderstanding something here?

I think you are right in the sense that yes, in your specific example.. perhaps doing it your way would be easier. But then again, if you look at the first sentence in the OOCSS page:
How do you scale CSS for thousands of pages?
In that context.. the second principle makes perfect sense.. so using your same example (ie let's assume we implemented your solution).. let's say that a year down the road your company decides to create light grey buttons in the black footer having black text:
<!-- inside footer -->
<a class="button lightGrey">link</a>
in this case.. all the a tags will be white because they're covered by your cascading. So then we will have to go create another sytle just to undo what your solution did:
.footer a.button.lightGrey {
color: #000; /* huh? but i thought we did this before with a {color: #000;} ?*/
}
where as if we simply made a decision that all a tags by default are black (see last note):
a{ color: #000; }
then in the footer we will create a special type of link that are supposed to be white:
.footerLinks { color: #FFF }
then a year later some of the links are still white.. others within the greyLight button will be black:
<a class="button lightGrey">link</a>
then here we don't have to worry about undoing anything.. a tags have a default color.. and that's it. if 2 years later someone decides that the links inside the lightGrey buttons (anywhere on the site, not only withen the footer.. which is the whole point of OOCSS) should be red.. then this would be the OOCSS approach:
.redLink {
color: red;
}
and the html will be
<a class="button lightGrey redLink">link</a>
in this case it won't matter if we take out the .lightGrey class, or we can have this code within or not within a footer .. it's all the same.. it results in more predictable and re-usable code.. which is OOCSS (I'm very glad that they're finally formalising this.. thanks a lot for the post btw).
One last note: To be pure OOCSS, one shouldn't change the default color of a ie a {color: #000;} is wrong!, it should be left to it's default color (which is blue).. whenever anyone wants to change that color.. then they must specify it ie
<a class="redLink">..</a>
so in this case it's more like the default a is the parent class.. and everything else subclasses it and overrides its default behaviour..
update - response to comments:
reputable site argument:
such initiatives are almost always driven by the community then adopted by reputable companies.. and even when they are adopted by larger companies it usually happens from the bottom up through enthusiastic developers who advocate for such change.. I for one was such an advocate when I was working in Amazon. And even when it's adopted.. it's usually at a small scale and not across all units in the org. it wouldn't even be a good idea for the Googles and the Amazons and the facebooks etc to enforce such a rule b/c there will always be a difference of opinion.. not to mention that such micromanagement would constrain the engineer's creativity.. there could be a guideline in a wiki for a team (ie we had one for the Amazon Kindle Touch app store) but to enforce that rule across 10,000 engineers working across the company wouldn't be practical nor desirable.
So in short if you see value in OOCSS, and start implementing on your site, and advocating it to your fellow web devs, and then it becomes a trend, that's when it eventually becomes an industry wide best practice and that's when you can expect to see it on facebook etc.
example:
take a look at this:
simple: http://jsfiddle.net/64sBg/
a bit more detailed: http://jsfiddle.net/64sBg/2/
without going too much detail (I'm sure you will see the pattern) you can see that the granularity in css descriptions allows for subtle changes without any redundancy in style definition. So notice the left arrow vs right arrow.. also the .red and .blue styles can be subsequently applied to tables etc..
also notice that there isn't a single cascading in my css.. so my styles can be completely independently applied (ie implementing the rule An object should look the same no matter where you put it)
lastly.. there is still use for cascading.. you can definitely use it in your jQuery selectors for example.. also cascading happens by default (ie without you having to explicitly set it in your css styles).. so if you take look at the css below.. you will notice that the font properties of body has cascaded down to all the buttons.
<a class="button blue dark">
<div class=" arrowDownWhite rightArrow">Analytics</div>
</a>
<a class="button red dark">
<div class=" arrowDownWhite leftArrow">Actions</div>
</a>
<a class="button grey light">
<div class=" arrowDownRed leftArrow">options</div>
</a>
and css:
body
{
font-family: Trebuchet MS,Liberation Sans,DejaVu Sans,sans-serif;
font-size: 15pt;
}
.button
{
padding: .5em 1em;
display: inline-block;
text-decoration: none;
}
.dark {
color: white;
}
.light{
color: #E40E62;
}
.blue
{
background-color: #51C8E8;
}
.red
{
background-color: #E40E62;
}
.grey
{
background-color: #E0E0E0 ;
}
.arrowDownWhite
{
background-image:url(http://s2.postimage.org/ywam7ec4l/small_Arrow_Down_White.png);
background-repeat:no-repeat;
}
.arrowDownRed
{
background-image:url(http://s2.postimage.org/je5743t2d/small_Arrow_Down_Red.png);
background-repeat:no-repeat;
}
.leftArrow
{
padding-left: 1em;
background-position: left center;
}
.rightArrow
{
padding-right: 1em;
background-position: right center;
}

It is worth the hassle of separating your skin from the container.
Lets look beyond colors. I wish Nicole Sullivan provided better examples than she does. I have 23 web sites that an contain
Menus
Tabs
Toolbars
Horizontal and Vertical Lists of Links
All of them are Skins of the Nav abstraction
I started off created an abstraction class to handle the common code between all of them. I added a few modifiers to change the orientation from horizontal to vertical, and also the floated position of it. I kept all colors out of the abstraction as well as css rules that can change based on the skin I apply to it.
/* Object */
.nav
{
margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 0; padding-left: 0; list-style: none;
}
/* Modifier */
.nav--stack .nav__item
{
display: block;
}
.nav--right
{
float: right;
}
/* Elements */
.nav__item
{
float:left
}
.nav__item__link
{
display:none;
}
Menu Skin
I needed a skin that made the .nav abstraction look like a sidebar menu. In case you are wondering, I did not put the padding for .nav_item_link above is because it can change based on the skin. The tabs skin has it set for 2px.
/* Object */
.menu
{
}
/* Elements */
.menu .nav__item--current.nav__item__link
{
color: #fff; background: blue;
}
.menu .nav__item__link
{
padding: 4px; border-radius: 4px;
}
.menu .nav__item__link:hover
{
background: #eee
}
Notice to keep things location-independent - I have 0 tag names. I don't style li and a children on .nav like bootstrap does. This code could be used on dls or even divs and has better performance based on how selector engines read rules.
To me the benefit of just having to skin the objects I have for all 23 sites I have is worth any hassle.

Related

Hide all text except for the first letter with CSS?

Is it possible to hide all letters after the first letter with CSS?
dt:not(::first-letter) {
display: none;
}
You can, but your CSS is wrong. The version below works (at least in Chrome). It makes the dt invisible, and defines an overrule for the first letter to make it visible again.
I tried the same with display too, but that doesn't work, as expected. visibility: hidden hides the content, but keeps the element in place, while display: none removes it from the flow, and makes it impossible for sub-elements (the first letter in this case) to become visible again.
I added a hover too, so you can hover the letter to see the rest of the dt.
dt {
visibility: hidden;
}
dt::first-letter {
visibility: visible;
}
/* Hover the first letter to see the rest */
dt:hover {
visibility: visible;
}
Hover to see the rest:
<dt>Lorum ipsum is a weird text</dt>
<dt>Foo bar</dt>
A side effect will be that the area that is covered by the text is still claimed. Maybe that is not an issue, but if it is you will need some other solution. One possibility is to make the font-size of the dt 0 too. That way, the text is so small that is claims no space. Won't help if it also contains images, of course.
Since it doesn't seem to work, here is the alternative using font-size. Less than ideal, but hopefully it will still solve your problem.
dt {
font-size: 0;
}
dt::first-letter {
font-size: 1rem;
}
/* Hover the first letter to see the rest */
dt:hover {
font-size: 1em;
}
Hover to see the rest:
<dt>Lorum ipsum is a weird text</dt>
<dt>Foo bar</dt>
I think you can try this:
.twitter{
display: block;
color: transparent;
}
.twitter:first-letter{
color: #000;
}
<div id="socialMedia">
<a class="twitter">Twitter</a>
</div>
<div id="socialMedia">
<a class="twitter">Google</a>
</div>
See also this fiddle
You cannot use :not with pseudo element selector (see this).
What you can do is thinking in another way: transparent-ize the whole thing, then color with ::first-letter. Because the latter has higher specificity, it will override the transparent setting, thus achieve the result you want.
An alternative based on Waruna's answer, using color instead of layout-based attributes. Main advantage is that it works on every browser I tested (Firefox, Chrome and M$ Edge, but should probably work on all browsers), and it does not cause any visual glitches (like the "baseline jumping a pixel" from the second solution of the accepted answer), since it uses a completely visual attribute.
The issue with your original CSS is that you cannot use pseudo-elements (::blah) inside :not. You have to expand it into the inverse logic so you do not need the :not
dt {
color: transparent;
}
dt::first-letter {
color: black;
}
/* For testing */
dt:hover {
color: black;
}
<dt>Hello World!</dt>
a bit late to the party but i found this solutuùion that may help someone
width: 1ch;
overflow: hidden;
It may not work for every font but it should. It is perfect for monospace as ch is the size of the O letter in a font, so if your first two letters are shorter than O it will work fine, otherwise you may have to tweak it a bit.
Change the ch and you can have the first 2, 3, 4 .... letters :)
Try this....
.newline1::first-letter {
font-size: 200%;
color: #8A2BE2;
}
.newline2::first-letter {
/*color: transparent;*/
font-size: 0px;
}
<div class="newline1">
Test Stackoverflow.com
</div>
<div class="newline2">
Test Stackoverflow.com
</div>
.newline1::first-letter {
font-size: 200%;
color: #8A2BE2;
}
.newline2::first-letter {
color: transparent;
}
<div class="newline1">
Test Stackoverflow.com
</div>
<div class="newline2">
Test Stackoverflow.com
</div>

Stop CSS 'a' styles being applied to images that are linked

I've been instructed to make links on a website have a different colour underline than the font colour. It all seemed quite easy, using border-bottom as below, except that linked images are now also underlined.
Is there a way, without using JS, to stop happening?
a{
color: #6A737B;
text-decoration: none;
}
a:hover{
border-bottom: 1px solid #C60B46;
text-decoration: none;
}
An example - hovering over the below image now adds the border-bottom CSS style to it, which I don't want -
<a title="Dyne Drewett" href="http://test.dynedrewett.com">
<img class="attachment-full" width="202" height="78" alt="Dyne Drewett Solicitors" src="http://test.example.com/Website-Header.png">
</a>
The only static way to do this would be to use a class on image links like:
<a href='http://whatever.url.here/' class='imglink'>
<img src='img/image.png' alt='Alt text'>
</a>
Then apply a CSS style to this class:
a.imglink:hover {
border-bottom: 0px solid;
}
You'd have to declare this AFTER the other a:hover CSS class.
Technically, you cannot set a style on an element based on what elements it contains. You cannot make the border of an a element depend on the presence of an img element inside (and this is what you are dealing with). Using classes would help, but from the comments, it seems that this is out of the question.
There’s a workaround: place each image at the bottom of the containing element (not on the baseline as per defaults), and shift it down one pixel, or whatever the border width might be. This way, the image will cover the bottom border, provided that the image has no transparency. CSS code:
a img {
vertical-align: bottom;
position: relative;
top: 1px;
}
This slightly changes the position of all images, so it might affect the overall layout unless you take precautions.
I'd suggest adding a class to the link, so you can do
a.imglink:hover{
border:0;
}
Alternatively, if you can't control that class, you can try adding a negative margin to your image to ensure the border doesn't show:
a img{
margin:0 0 -1px 0;
}
That -1px might need adjusting based on your other rules
Here's a fiddle to show the negative margin solution: http://jsfiddle.net/QRXGe/
Your solution will require you adding an additional class name to links that wrap images (or anything where the border should be removed). There's no way to sort of "reverse select" unless you want to employ a JavaScript technique.
A jQuery technique would be something like this:
$('a > img').parent().css('border-bottom', 'none');
That will remove a "border-bottom" style from all anchor tags that have image as a direct descendant. But you'll need it on every page, and every page is getting parsed by this script, so it's a little added overhead on each page.
Otherwise, if you have access to the HTML, creating a CSS class to target these specific links such as:
a.img-link{ border-bottom:none; }
And apply it to any link that's around an image such as:
<img src="#" alt="" />
I hope that helps!
Another way to achieve this is to simply make the images in links relative and then offset the bottom to cover the border. 5px seems to do it http://jsfiddle.net/ECuwD/
a{
color: #6A737B;
text-decoration: none;
}
a:hover{
border-bottom: 1px solid #C60B46;
text-decoration: none;
}
a img {
position:relative;
bottom: -5px;
}
a:hover img {
border-bottom:none;
}
or perhaps...
a:hover img.attachment-full {
border-bottom:none;
}
Apparently, what you want is a different behavior for the same markup (<a>) based on its content.
Sadly, there is no real way to do this with pure CSS, as this language is not programming language and therefore lacks the condition structures, such as if.
That does not mean that there is no solution! Here is a couple of things you can do:
Declare (say) in your HTML that the element (<a>) should be handled differently (with classes, in your case either <a class="text"> or <a class='image'>.
Use JavaScript to change your style dynamically, which means based on conditions, such as content for instance. In your case it would probably be something like:
function onLoad() {
for (var element in document.body) {
// look for links
// if this is a link:
// look for image inside link
// if there is one:
// remove the border
}
}

CSS Best Practice/Newbie Question

Ok, a really quick question - which is the best way out of these to apply css styles:
1 - Use lots of different classes that apply different parts of the style i.e. class='font-1 red-bkg border-1' etc etc.
Or
2 - Style up individual parts of the site seperately
What you should do for font for example is to apple it to body, same for background colour, font colour etc...
body{font: Verdana 38px; color: #000; background: #fff;}
Then for individual features (e.g. margins, padding, borders etc) they should be defined in a per-class way.
.classname {
margin: 0px 5px 10px 5px;
padding: 10px 5px 10px 6px;
}
It is better for maintainability and makes your HTML less messy.
I believe to justify shared classes you should have more than one property in it, otherwise you are not gaining anything from using CSS's modularity.
I.e. things like this are not good ideas:
.bold { font-weight: bold; }
Style up individual parts of the site seperately. The other solution would kind of screw the intention behind it - separating content from styling.
Seems like you will enjoy this read, I certainly did:
http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/html-css-techniques/30-css-best-practices-for-beginners/
You should name logically classes, because when you change your layout and currently you have style like
.bold .5px-brd .red.bg
then changing this to another colour and style will include grep'ing through entire application code in order to correct css styles.
As you may notice approach like
.bold .5px-brd .red.bg
it's good, and don't go with philosophy of CSS.
Classes with name like
.bold
should be used as auxiliary style. Never as basic construction block.
http://jsfiddle.net/sheriffderek/RMfEn/
html
<section class='container blocks'>
<h2>Blocks of content</h2>
<div class='block highlight-theme'>
<p>None of the styling should be done in the html.</p>
</div>
<div class='block base-theme'>
<p>You can use modular classes to style common pieces of the layout and then modify them with more specific classes.</p>
</div>
<div class='block contrast-theme'>
<p>So the stuff in this box could be a dark-theme with .contrast-theme or something</p>
</div>
</section>
css
.container, .block { /* structural elements */
width: 100%;
float; left;
padding: .5rem;
overflow: hidden; /* use a clear-fix instead */
}
/* mini themes /// mix and match */
.base-theme {
background: lightgray;
color: black;
}
.highlight-theme {
background: yellow;
color: red;
}
.contrast-theme {
background: gray;
color: white;
}

How to change background-color on text links on hover but not image links

I have a CSS rule like this:
a:hover { background-color: #fff; }
But this results in a bad-looking gap at the bottom on image links, and what's even worse, if I have transparent images, the link's background color can be seen through the image.
I have stumbled upon this problem many times before, but I always solved it using the quick-and-dirty approach of assigning a class to image links:
a.imagelink:hover { background-color: transparent; }
Today I was looking for a more elegant solution to this problem when I stumbled upon this.
Basically what it suggests is using display: block, and this really solves the problem for non-transparent images. However, it results in another problem: now the link is as wide as the paragraph, although the image is not.
Is there a nice way to solve this problem, or do I have to use the dirty approach again?
Thanks,
I tried to find some selector that would get only <a> elements that don't have <img> descendants, but couldn't find any...
About images with that bottom gap, you could do the following:
a img{vertical-align:text-bottom;}
This should get rid of the background showing up behind the image, but may throw off the layout (by not much, though), so be careful.
For the transparent images, you should use a class.
I really hope that's solved in CSS3, by implementing a parent selector.
I'm confused at what you are terming "image links"... is that an 'img' tag inside of an anchor? Or are you setting the image in CSS?
If you're setting the image in CSS, then there is no problem here (since you're already able to target it)... so I must assume you mean:
<a ...><img src="..." /></a>
To which, I would suggest that you specify a background color on the image... So, assuming the container it's in should be white...
a:hover { background: SomeColor }
a:hover img { background-color: #fff; }
I usually do something like this to remove the gap under images:
img {
display: block;
float: left;
}
Of course this is not always the ideal solution but it's fine in most situations.
This way works way better.
a[href$=jpg], a[href$=jpeg], a[href$=jpe], a[href$=png], a[href$=gif] {
text-decoration: none;
border: 0 none;
background-color: transparent;
}
No cumbersome classes that have to be applied to each image. Detailed description here:
http://perishablepress.com/press/2008/10/14/css-remove-link-underlines-borders-linked-images/
Untested idea:
a:hover {background-color: #fff;}
img:hover { background-color: transparent;}
The following should work (untested):
First you
a:hover { background-color: #fff; }
Then you
a:imagelink:hover { background-color: inherit; }
The second rule will override the first for <a class="imagelink" etc.> and preserve the background color of the parent.
I tried to do this without the class="", but I can't find a CSS selector that is the opposite of foo > bar, which styles a bar when it is the child of a foo. You would want to style the foo when it has a child of class bar. You can do that and even fancier things with jQuery, but that may not be desirable as a general technique.
you could use display: inline-block but that's not completely crossbrowser. IE6 and lower will have a problem with it.
I assume you have whitespaces between <a> and <img>? try removing that like this:
<a><img /></a>
I had this problem today, and used another solution than display: block thanks to the link by asker. This means I am able to retain the link ONLY on the image and not expand it to its container.
Images are inline, so they have space below them for lower part of letters like "y, j, g". This positions the images at baseline, but you can alter it if you have no <a>TEXT HERE</a> like with a logo. However you still need to mask the text line space and its easy if you use a plain color as background (eg in body or div#wrapper).
body {
background-color: #112233;
}
a:hover {
background-color: red;
}
a img {
border-style: none; /* not need for this solution, but removes borders around images which have a link */
vertical-align: bottom; /* here */
}
a:hover img {
background-color: #112233; /* MUST match the container background, or you arent masking the hover effect */
}
I had the same problem. In my case I am using the image as background. I did the following and it resolved my problem:
background-image: url(file:"use the same background image or color");

I have a link icon next to each link. How do I exclude the link icon from images?

I've got the following in my .css file creating a little image next to each link on my site:
div.post .text a[href^="http:"]
{
background: url(../../pics/remote.gif) right top no-repeat;
padding-right: 10px;
white-space: nowrap;
}
How do I modify this snippet (or add something new) to exclude the link icon next to images that are links themselves?
If you set the background color and have a negative right margin on the image, the image will cover the external link image.
Example:
a[href^="http:"] {
background: url(http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/external.png) right center no-repeat;
padding-right: 14px;
white-space: nowrap;
}
a[href^="http:"] img {
margin-right: -14px;
border: medium none;
background-color: red;
}
Google
<br/>
<a href="http://www.google.ca">
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg/50px-Commons-logo.svg.png" />
</a>
edit: If you've got a patterned background this isn't going to look great for images that have transparency. Also, your href^= selector won't work on IE7 but you probably knew that already
It might be worth it to add a class to those <a> tags and then add another declaration to remove the background:
div.post .text a.noimage{
background:none;
}
You need a class name on either the a elements you want to include or exclude. If you don't want to do this in your server side code or documents, you could add the classes with javascript as the page is loaded. With the selection logic wrapped up elsewhere, your rule could just be:
a.external_link
{
background: url(../../pics/remote.gif) right top no-repeat;
padding-right: 10px;
white-space: nowrap;
}
It would be possible with XPath to create a pattern like yours that would also exclude a elements that had img children, however this facility has been repeatedly (2002, 2006, 2007) proposed and rejected for CSS, largely on the grounds it goes against the incremental layout principles.
So, while it is possible to do neat conditional content additions as you have with a contextual selector and a prefix match on the href attribute, CSS is considerably weaker than a general purpose programming language. To do more complex things you need to move the logic up a level and write out simpler instructions for the style engine to handle.
If you have the content of the links as a span, you could do this, otherwise I think you would need to give one scenario a class to differentiate it.
a > span {
background: url(../../pics/remote.gif) right top no-repeat;
padding-right: 10px;
white-space: nowrap;
}
a > img {
/* any specific styling for images wrapped in a link (e.g. polaroid like) */
border: 1px solid #cccccc;
padding: 4px 4px 25px 4px;
}

Resources