Related
Which of the following would be considered best (i.e. better) practice?
#anElement {
font-size:1em;
color:white;
}
/* other stuff */
#anElement {
width:100px;
margin-bottom:10px;
}
or
#anElement {
background-color:black;
color:white;
font-size:1em;
margin-bottom:10px;
}
In other words: should I dry the CSS as much as possible or should I work on typography and general layout separately, maybe even in separate files?
Combine them but give the properties a logical grouping. There are several ways to group them; you might order them alphabetically or logically (text properties together, margins-paddings together, etc).
See CSS Property Order, written by Mark Otto, Creator of Bootstrap.
Also worth noting, in a simple styling example like the one you provided you should ask yourself one question...is it possible that some/all of this code might be reused in other spots on the page? Maybe there are several divs that could use the same styling. Then you should be using a class not an id.
The first option is perfectly acceptable, and certain CSS minifiers will combine them all into one anyway. I'd definitely look into using a minifier, since the first option can produce much more readable/maintainable code, especially if separated into multiple files.
Having multiple style sheets is going to hurt your page performance. If you want to organize your css in this way, consider a pre-processor such as http://sass-lang.com/.
I know that in a stylesheet div#name and #name do the same thing. Personally I've taken to using div#name for most styling I do, with the reasoning that it's slightly faster, and means that I can identify HTML elements more easily by looking at the CSS.
However all of the big websites I seem to look at use #name over div#name (stack overflow included)
In fact I'm finding it very difficult to find many websites at all that use div#name over #name
Is there some advantage to doing #name that I'm missing? Are there any reasons to use it over div#name that I don't yet know about?
Since the div part of div#name is not required (because ID are unique per page), it makes for smaller CSS files to remove it. Smaller CSS files means faster HTTP requests and page load times.
And as NickC pointed out, lack of div allows one to change the HTML tag of the element without breaking the style rule.
Since ID's have to be unique on the page, most ID's you'd run into would only ever appear once in your style sheet, so it makes sense not to bother including what element it would appear on. Excluding it also saves a few characters in your style sheet, which for large sites which get visited millions and millions of times a day, saves quite a bit of bandwidth.
There is an advantage to including the element name in the case where a division with ID "name" might appear differently than a span with ID "name" (where it would show a division on one type of page and a span on another type of page). This is pretty rare though, and I've never personally run across a site that has done this. Usually they just use different ID's for them.
It's true that including the element name is faster, but the speed difference between including it and excluding it on an ID selector is very, very small. Much smaller than the bandwidth that the site is saving by excluding it.
a matter of code maintainability and readability.
when declaring element#foo the code-style becomes rigid - if one desires to change the document's structure, or replace element types, one would have to change the stylesheets as well.
if declaring #foo we'll better conform to the 'separation of concerns' and 'KISS' principals.
another important issue is the CSS files get minified by a couple of characters, that may build up to many of characters on large stylesheets.
Since an id like #name should be unique to the page, there is no reason per se to put the element with it. However, div#name will have a higher precedence, which may (or may not) be desired. See this fiddle where the following #name does not override the css of div#name.
I would guess that including the element name in your id selector would actually be slower – browsers typically hash elements with id attributes for quicker element look up. Adding in the element name would add an extra step that could potentially slow it down.
One reason you might want to use element name with id is if you need to create a stronger selector. For example you have a base stylesheet with:
#titlebar {
background-color: #fafafa;
}
But, on a few pages, you include another stylesheet with some styles that are unique to those pages. If you wanted to override the style in the base stylesheet, you could beef up your selector:
div#titlebar {
background-color: #ffff00;
}
This selector is more specific (has a higher specificity), so it will overwrite the base style.
Another reason you would want to use element name with id would be if different pages use a different element for the same id. Eg, using a span instead of a link when there is no appropriate link:
a#productId {
color: #0000ff;
}
span#productId {
color: #cccccc;
}
Using #name only:
Well the first obvious advantage would be that a person editing the HTML (template or whatever) wouldn't break CSS without knowing it by changing an element.
With all of the new HTML5 elements, element names have become a lot more interchangeable for the purpose of semantics alone (for example, changing a <div> to be a more semantic <header> or <section>).
Using div#name:
You said "with the reasoning that it's slightly faster". Without some hard facts from the rendering engine developers themselves, I would hesitate to even make this assumption.
First of all, the engine is likely to store a hash table of elements by ID. That would mean that creating a more specific identifier is not likely to have any speed increase.
Second, and more importantly, such implementation details are going to vary browser to browser and could change at any time, so even if you had hard data, you probably shouldn't let it factor into your development.
I use the div#name because the code is more readable in the CSS file.
I also structure my CSS like this:
ul
{
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
}
ul.Home
{
padding: 10px 0;
}
ul#Nav
{
padding: 0 10px;
}
So I'm starting generic and then becoming more specific later on.
It just makes sense to me.
Linking div name: http://jsfiddle.net/wWUU7/1/
CSS:
<style>
div[name=DIVNAME]{
color:green;
cursor:default;
font-weight:bold;
}
div[name=DIVNAME]:hover{
color:blue;
cursor:default;
font-weight:bold;
}
</style>
HTML:
<div name="DIVNAME">Hover This!</div>
List of Css selectors:
http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css_selectors.asp
When I first started writing CSS, I was writing it in an expanded form
div.class {
margin: 10px 5px 3px;
border: 1px solid #333;
font-weight: bold;
}
.class .subclass {
text-align:right;
}
but now I find myself writing css like this: (Example from code I'm actually writing now)
.object1 {}
.scrollButton{width:44px;height:135px;}
.scrollButton img {padding:51px 0 0 23px;}
.object2 {width:165px;height:94px;margin:15px 0 0 23px;padding:15px 0 0 10px;background:#fff;}
.featuredObject .symbol{line-height:30px; padding-top:6px;}
.featuredObject .value {width:90px;}
.featuredObject .valueChange {padding:5px 0 0 0;}
.featuredObject img {position:absolute;margin:32px 0 0 107px;}
and I'm beginning to worry because a lot of the time I see the first form done in examples online, while I find the second form a lot easier for me to work with. It has a lower vertical height, so I can see all the classes at a glance with less scrolling, the tabulation of the hierarchy seems more apparent, and it looks more like code I'd write with javascript or html. Is this a valid way of doing code, or to keep with standards when putting it online should I use the vertical form instead?
Well, here is what say the most :)
summary:
css-tricks.com ran a poll. By a margin of roughly 3 to 1, most people preferred multi-line over single line css styles.
I personally prefer the first style. I like things that are easy to read and I don't mind scrolling. The dense nature of the second style slows down my reading, my ability to pick out the items that I'm interested in.
There certainly are trade offs to be considered with CSS due to the file size. CSS can be compressed. I find the size of CSS files to be the least of my worries with the sites I've built so far.
Ultimately, the important thing is that whichever style you choose to use is to be consistent. That consistency will make your life simpler when you have to update your CSS or when another developer has to update your CSS.
Indicating the hierarchy using indentation is not a bad idea. However, you should be careful that you don't fool yourself. In your example, you may be assuming that .scrollButton is always within .object1. But CSS doesn't obey that rule. If you used a .scrollButton class outside of .object1, it would still get the styles.
I dont know about you but I like the vertical mode during dev as it is far more easier to read for me.
However, in prod, you wanna compress your css to reduce payload and hence, the second style makes sense. Mostly, you would be using some CSS compressor to do this.
i like to write css in multi line. because this is easier to write and read. we can find error as early as possible and a look of view is nice with indentation . mostly when a designer work with css and gave to developer to develop site than developer can understand easily.
so i think multi line css is better way to work.
I personally find both of your examples hard to read, especially the second one.
Multi-line is easier to follow, and indentation can be misleading as CSS is not necessarily applied in that way. Your indentation may lead you to believe it is.
I prefer the basic tried and true method of multi-line, with reasonable/logical order:
div.class
{
margin: 10px 5px 3px;
border: 1px solid #333;
font-weight: bold;
}
.class
{
text-align: center;
margin-left: 10px;
}
.class .subclass
{
text-align:right;
}
Takes up a little more space and requires a little scrolling to take in, but is easy to follow. Those worried about optimization can always use CSS shrinking tools for production CSS files.
In the end as long as you are very consistent with your work and across a team (if applicable) then no answer is more correct.
I prefer the second style, but be aware that it's a style. In the same way that some people prefer
function (arg)
{
body();
}
to
function(arg){
body();
}
I don't get it, myself. The argument is "it's easier to read", and my response is consistently "... for you". As a note, I get the feeling that this is why so many examples use the more-whitespace version; it has the reputation (if not confirmed property) of being easier to read.
Pick the one you like and stick with it. If you have a team to cooperate with, try to get to consensus, or barring that, write some auto-formatting scripts and stay out of each other's way. It's not like it's terribly difficult to mechanically transform one into the other.
The style you write in is your choice(I prefer multi line) but as Rajat said you want to remove any extra whitespace after dev. Anytime you can reduce file size and payload you are doing your site and your visitors a favor.
I think it also depends on your editor. I use multi line formatting and condense every definition with Vim's folding (I set up folding marks to be { and }) so I get one tag/class/id per line, expandable when needed.
Using comments to identify "sections" I get a very clean look with minimal vertical scroll while maintaining the readability of multi line on expanded definitions.
I just want to point out that Textmate has an option that allows you to easily switch between these two styles by selecting an area and pressing Ctrl-Q/Ctrl-Alt-Q to expand/collapse. As a consequence I have come to find that I prefer my CSS collapsed unless I am writing or deep debugging a specific section. But, with the ability to easily switch between he two I see that both ways are useful for different circumstances.
I prefer multiline right up until we deploy. At that point I want it minified.
Perhaps, when you have multiple selectors and one rule, like this:
#header li a, #header li span {
display:inline-block;
}
So, I prefer to do:
#header li a,
#header li span {
display:inline-block;
}
I've always liked this style:
#something1 {
color : #ffffff;
background : #000000;
}
#something2 {
color : #000000;
background : #ffffff;
}
But yo answer your question: As long as it functions the same way, there is no "proper" or "best" way to format your code. Use a style your comfortable with.
I have a page that looks like: <div id="header">...</div><div id="navigation">...</div> similar for body and footer.
I'd like to use a grid system to style the page, all of which seem to rely on giving the divs mentioned a class based on their presentation. But I don't want to do this (and can't because of the way the markup is generated)
Is there a way to do this, without just putting a class on the divs? I could copy the details of the class desired to a stylesheet mentioning the divs by id, but that feels wrong.
Edit to clarify:
The OP wants to avoid adding class="grid_3" etc. to the HTML, but also doesn't want to add #header { width: 960px; margin: 0px; } (which I think is okay) – Rory Fitzpatrick 3 hours ago
Exactly, I don't want to put presentation information in my HTML, but I hoped I wouldn't have to just take the css classes that make up the grid system apart, and apply the relevant parts (like margin:0px and width:960px), since that is bad from a maintenance and reuse angle.
So, I'll look at an automated system for doing what I need, unless there is an answer to how do you apply a css class to an HTML element, using css, without adding class="blah" to that element? Because that doesn't seem like a crazy thing to want to do to me.
Well if you use blueprint-css as your grid system you can use the compress.rb to assign the rules for given bp framework classes to a specific selector of your choice like #footer or what have you. for example in your project yaml you could have:
semantic_styles: # i dont think this is the right key definition but you get the idea
'#footer,#navigation': ['span-12','clearfix']
'#footer': ['push-1']
# etc...
Then when you call compress.rb on the project file it will roll up the necessary declaration from the array of selectors on the right into the selector on the left producing:
#footer,#navigation{ /* composite delcalrations from .span-12 and .clearfix */}
#footer {/* declarations from .push-1 */}
But all in all this is essential an automation of copying the declarations to a separate file that you say seems "wrong". But i mean other than doing this (automated or manually) i dont see what the possible options could be.
I'm not sure I understand the question. Why don't you want to put styles in a stylesheet and reference them by id?
#header{
position:relative;
...
}
I have the same reservations about grid systems, adding class names just goes against separating markup and style (but is often sacrificed for productivity).
However, I don't see what's wrong with setting the right column widths and margins using your own CSS. You could have a specific site.grid.css file that contains only selectors and widths/margins for the grid. I think this is perfectly okay, it's just a way of using CSS like variables. For instance, all 3-column elements would appear under
/* 3-column elements, width 301px */
#sidebar, #foobar, #content .aside {
width: 301px;
}
Then rather than adding class="grid_3" to your HTML, you just add the selector to the CSS.
You might want to consider using the class names initially, until you're happy with the layout, then convert it into CSS selectors. Whichever works best for your workflow.
If you don't have access to the markup you must either copy the styles, referencing the ids, or maybe you can apply the class to the ids using javascript?
How does one go about establishing a CSS 'schema', or hierarchy, of general element styles, nested element styles, and classed element styles. For a rank novice like me, the amount of information in stylesheets I view is completely overwhelming. What process does one follow in creating a well factored stylesheet or sheets, compared to inline style attributes?
I'm a big fan of naming my CSS classes by their contents or content types, for example a <ul> containing navigational "tabs" would have class="tabs". A header containing a date could be class="date" or an ordered list containing a top 10 list could have class="chart". Similarly, for IDs, one could give the page footer id="footer" or the logo of the website id="mainLogo". I find that it not only makes classes easy to remember but also encourages proper cascading of the CSS. Things like ol.chart {font-weight: bold; color: blue;} #footer ol.chart {color: green;} are quite readable and takes into account how CSS selectors gain weight by being more specific.
Proper indenting is also a great help. Your CSS is likely to grow quite a lot unless you want to refactor your HTML templates evertime you add a new section to your site or want to publish a new type of content. However hard you try you will inevitably have to add a few new rules (or exceptions) that you didn't anticipate in your original schema. Indeting will allow you to scan a large CSS file a lot quicker. My personal preference is to indent on how specific and/or nested the selector is, something like this:
ul.tabs {
list-style-type: none;
}
ul.tabs li {
float: left;
}
ul.tabs li img {
border: none;
}
That way the "parent" is always furthest to the left and so the text gets broken up into blocks by parent containers. I also like to split the stylesheet into a few sections; first comes all the selectors for HTML elements. I consider these so generic that they should come first really. Here I put "body { font-size: 77%; }" and "a { color: #FFCC00; }" etc. After that I would put selectors for the main framework parts of the page, for instance "ul#mainMenu { float: left; }" and "div#footer { height: 4em; }". Then on to common object classes, "td.price { text-align: right; }", finally followed by extra little bits like ".clear { clear: both; }". Now that's just how I like to do it - I'm sure there are better ways but it works for me.
Finally, a couple of tips:
Make best use of cascades and don't "overclass" stuff. If you give a <ul> class="textNav" then you can access its <li>s and their children without having to add any additional class assignments. ul.textNav li a:hover {}
Don't be afraid to use multiple classes on a single object. This is perfectly valid and very useful. You then have control of the CSS for groups of objects from more than one axis. Also giving the object an ID adds yet a third axis. For example:
<style>
div.box {
float: left;
border: 1px solid blue;
padding: 1em;
}
div.wide {
width: 15em;
}
div.narrow {
width: 8em;
}
div#oddOneOut {
float: right;
}
</style>
<div class="box wide">a wide box</div>
<div class="box narrow">a narrow box</div>
<div class="box wide" id="oddOneOut">an odd box</div>
Giving a class to your document <body> tag (or ID since there should only ever be one...) enables some nifty overrides for individual pages, like hilighting the menu item for the page you're currently on or getting rid of that redundant second sign-in form on the sign-in page, all using CSS only. "body.signIn div#mainMenu form.signIn { display: none; }"
I hope you find at least some of my ramblings useful and wish you the best with your projects!
There are a number of different things you can do to aid in the organisation of your CSS. For example:
Split your CSS up into multiple files. For example: have one file for layout, one for text, one for reset styles etc.
Comment your CSS code.
Why not add a table of contents?
Try using a CSS framework like 960.gs to get your started.
It's all down to personal taste really. But here are a few links that you might find useful:
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/08/18/7-principles-of-clean-and-optimized-css-code/
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/05/02/improving-code-readability-with-css-styleguides/
http://www.louddog.com/bloggity/2008/03/css-best-practices.php
http://natbat.net/2008/Sep/28/css-systems/
Think of the CSS as creating a 'toolkit' that the HTML can refer to. The following rules will help:
Make class names unambiguous. In most cases this means prefixing them in a predicatable way. For example, rather than left, use something like header_links_object2_left.
Use id rather than class only if you know there will only ever be one of an object on a page. Again, make the id unambiguous.
Consider side effects. Rules like margin and padding, float and clear, and so on can all have unexpected consequences on other elements.
If your stylesheet is to be used my several HTML coders, consider writing them a small, clear guide to how to write HTML to match your scheme. Keep it simple, or you'll bore them.
And as always, test it in multiple browsers, on multiple operating systems, on lots of different pages, and under any other unusual conditions you can think of.
Putting all of your CSS declarations in roughly the same order as they will land in the document hierarchy is generally a good thing. This makes it fairly easy for future readers to see what attributes will be inherited, since those classes will be higher up in the file.
Also, this is sort of orthogonal to your question, but if you are looking for a tool to help you read a CSS file and see how everything shakes out, I cannot recommend Firebug enough.
The best organizational advice I've ever received came from a presentation at An Event Apart.
Assuming you're keeping everything in a single stylesheet, there's basically five parts to it:
Reset rules (may be as simple as the
* {margin: 0; padding: 0} rule,
Eric Meyer's reset, or the YUI
reset)
Basic element styling; this
is the stuff like basic typography
for paragraphs, spacing for lists,
etc.
Universal classes; this section
for me generally contains things
like .error, .left (I'm only 80%
semantic), etc.
Universal
layout/IDs; #content, #header,
or whatever you've cut your page up
into.
Page-specific rules; if you
need to modify an existing style
just for one or a few pages, stick a
unique ID high up (body tag is
usually good) and toss your
overrides at the end of the document
I don't recommend using a CSS framework unless you need to mock something up in HTML fast. They're far too bloated, and I've never met one whose semantics made sense to me; it's much better practice to create your own "framework" as you figure out what code is shared by your projects over time.
Reading other people's code is a whole other issue, and with that I wish you the best of luck. There's some truly horrific CSS out there.
Cop-out line of the year: it depends.
How much do you need to be styling? Do you need to change the aspects of alomost every element, or is it only a few?
My favorite place to go for information like this is CSS Zen Garden & A List Apart.
There are two worlds:
The human editor perspective: Where CSS is most easily understand, when it has clear structure, good formatting, verbose names, structured into layout, color and typesetting...
The consumer perspective: The visitor is most happy if your site loades quickly, if it look perfect in his browser, so the css has to be small, in one file (to save further connections) and contain CSS hacks to support all browsers.
I recommend you to start with a CSS framework:
Blueprint if you like smaller things
or YAML for a big and functional one
There is also a list of CSS Frameworks...
And then bring it in shape (for the browser) with a CSS Optimizer (p.e. CSS Form.&Opti.)
You can measure the Results (unpotimized <-> optimized) with YSlow.
A few more tips for keeping organized:
Within each declaration, adopt an order of attributes that you stick to. For example, I usually list margins, padding, height, width, border, fonts, display/float/other, in that order, allowing for easier readability in my next tip
Write your CSS like you would any other code: indent! It's easy to scan a CSS file for high level elements and then drill down rather than simply going by source order of your HTML.
Semantic HTML with good class names can help a lot with remembering what styles apply to which elements.