are these css classes names good? - css

See section /* Common Classes */ of this page.
http://webdesign.about.com/od/css/a/master_stylesht_2.htm
are these css classes good, to use in any project? in terms of semantic?
/* Common Classes */
.clear { clear: both; }
.floatLeft { float: left; }
.floatRight { float: right; }
.textLeft { text-align: left; }
.textRight { text-align: right; }
.textCenter { text-align: center; }
.textJustify { text-align: justify; }
.blockCenter { display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; } /* remember to set width */
.bold { font-weight: bold; }
.italic { font-style: italic; }
.underline { text-decoration: underline; }
.noindent { margin-left: 0; padding-left: 0; }
.nomargin { margin: 0; }
.nopadding { padding: 0; }
.nobullet { list-style: none; list-style-image: none; }

No. They are not good choices. The whole point of css and in particular about the concept of class is to describe "what" something represents, not "how" it should appear. What something means (i.e. its semantics) and how it appears (i.e. its presentation) are two separated concepts. The fact that something is, say, a menu does not change if you decide to show it blue on light blue with one stylesheet and high contrast black on white on another stylesheet made for colorblind people.
If you give class a presentation meaning, changing how a document appears would require changes in the web page html, defeating the whole point of having CSS as a technology specifically designed to provide and encapsulate presentation. To prevent this, the alternative would be to end up having classes whose names do not represent reasonable information (e.g. class called "bluefont" which actually contains a color:red directive). Hence, having "bluefont" as a name is totally arbitrary, and here becomes desynchronized with the actual content. It could have been a random string "abgewdgbcv", but then it's better to choose something that is unrelated to presentation and conveys meaning: its associated semantics.
And we close the circle: it's the whole point of classes. See also this document at W3.

No, not really.
Preferrably a class name should describe what you use it for, not exactly what it does.
If you for example name a class "bluebold" and then decide that you want the text to be red and italic, you either have to create a new class and change it everywhere it's used, or you end up with a class name that no longer fits.

One point that I would like to suggest is, when you are extending these just make sure that you just use verbs instead of using any adjectives as names for the classes and you should be good!
Edit:
I agree with others point of class names representing what it is used for, not exactly what it does.

Common CSS classes are way too granular and promote classitis problem. Pseudo selectors can mitigate the problem to some extent. Assuming a new website is being designed I would do the following:
*{
margin:0;
padding:0
}
li {
list-style: none;
list-style-image: none;
}
The rest are difficult to address, floatLeft and floatRight are to be defined by the layout,
<div id="main">
<div class="searchPanel">
</div>
<div class="resultsPanel">
</div>
</div>
The CSS ideally should look like ( layout driven)
#main searchPanel {
float: left;
}
#main resultsPanel {
float: right;
}
Hope you get the idea. I however, face problems with bold/underlined text. Underlined text is indicative of ugly design. Users tend to confuse such with hyper-links

some recomendations:
.floatLeft --> .float-left:
no camel cased.
.bold --> .important
name should tell the goal no showing how to do it
.nobullet --> ul.nobullet
is better to be most specified to avoid conflict with other css.

Related

How to style definition list with CSS to create single paragraph with hanging indent for each entry?

I am using Pandoc to turn LaTeX into HTML. It translates LaTeX description environments into HTML definitions lists like this:
<dl>
<dt>term:</dt>
<dd><p>definition may be very long and, when viewed online, span multiple lines</p></dd>
</dl>
The standard appearance is:
term:
definition may be very long and, when viewed
online, span multiple lines
I would like to get:
term: definition may be very long and, when viewed
online, span multiple lines
I.e., have the term and definition appear as a single paragraph with hanging indent. What CSS do I need to achieve this? (I'm using Bootstrap 3.3.7 at the moment, so something that layers nicely on top of that would be particularly welcome, as would something that sets the term in bold.)
This will do the trick. (Edited to clear lines and add spacing between items)
<section class="latex-list">
<dl>
<dt>term:</dt>
<dd><p>definition may be very long and, when viewed online, span multiple lines</p></dd>
<dt>term:</dt>
<dd><p>definition may be very long and, when viewed online, span multiple lines</p></dd>
<dt>term:</dt>
<dd><p>definition may be very long and, when viewed online, span multiple lines</p></dd>
</dl>
</section>
The style on the <p> would cause issues elsewhere so you'll want to have this name scoped to class. You can change latex-list to anything you want, but I was assuming you couldn't put it on the lists themselves.
.latex-list dl {
padding-left: 16px;
}
.latex-list dt {
clear: left;
float: left;
margin: 0 2px 0 0;
}
.latex-list dd::after {
content: "";
display: block;
height: 16px;
}
.latex-list dd,
.latex-list p {
display: inline;
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
}
.latex-list dt {
margin-left: -16px;
}
Using "display: inline" property on the items that have to be placed next to each other
dt, dd, p {
display: inline;
}
Refer: https://codepen.io/sprushika/pen/NYZeVb

What is right BEM approach to global class inheritance?

I recently started using BEM methodology and I'm confused about class inheritance, or rather - when we talk about BEM - some use cases of modifiers.
Let's look at this example, I have a simple element with few children
.b-content { width: 100%; }
.b-content__image { display: block; }
.b-content__date { font-size: 14px; }
.b-content__title { font-size: 30px; }
.b-content__text { font-size: 16px; }
Now I want to reuse my .b-content block with slightly different styles, so I use modifier .m-compact and now I'm not sure what approach is the right one (in BEM).
Whether I should append modifier class to all elements (which I find more valid according to documentation):
.b-content.m-compact { width: 50%; }
.b-content__image.m-compact { display: none; }
.b-content__date.m-compact { font-size: 12px; }
.b-content__title.m-compact { font-size: 24px; }
.b-content__text.m-compact { font-size: 14px; }
or should I append modifier only to the parent element:
.b-content.m-compact { width: 50%; }
.b-content.m-compact .b-content__image { display: none; }
.b-content.m-compact .b-content__date { font-size: 12px; }
.b-content.m-compact .b-content__title { font-size: 24px; }
.b-content.m-compact .b-content__text { font-size: 14px; }
I find this second method more logical, you know, since I'm writing cascading styles and in real world if I want to write e-mail to 10 people, I would write one and just add more recipients, but on the other hand I realize BEM is practically non-cascading approach.
So what should I use and why?
As you point out in the last lines of your question, when doing BEM you should avoid cascading so, as a corollary to this, you don't have to repeat the modifier where it isn't needed.
For your Modifier I'd write something like this:
.b-content--m-compact {
width: 50%;
}
In your example the Block and the Modifier set only the width, so this is a limited use case. In general it comes handy to use some kind of CSS preprocess to ease the code writing, e.g. in SASS:
.my-block
width: 100%
color: red
&--modifier
#extend .my-block
border: 1px solid red
which will results in:
.my-block, .my-block--modifier {
width: 100%;
color: red;
}
.my-block--modifier {
border: 1px solid red;
}
Modifier in BEM looks like this: .block_modName_modValue
You can add additional class - but it's not BEM. And also modifiers have a name and value.
Block in BEM set namespace
So you set default styles for blocks and all unique(that can be changed) place in css with modifiers. This way your styles don't messed up.
To do this you need:
Place common styles in block styles(.portfolio)
Place unique style(with modifiers) like this.(portfolio_theme_list)
In css you don't need to separate this(preprocessor will be needed).
.portfolio {
/* common styles */
&_theme_list {
/* modifiers style */
}
}
In BEM project-stub(template engine) it would look like this:
If you add modifier to block. Then compile(bemjson) to html.
{
block : 'portfolio',
mods : { theme : 'list' },
}
You will see this code
<div class="portfolio portfolio_theme_list">
</div>
You write elements correctly and understand that they need to be separated(without inheritence).
So now you need just define styles for your block with modifier(portfolio_theme_list).
You have 2 options:
1) If you have 2 different blocks - you need separate common and
unique styles. Unique styles place in styles with modified blocks.
2) If you have only 1 different block & you already have styles on
this blocks. Then you can override and don't separate common
styles(but it can cause pain if you add another modifier/instance)

sass nesting at 2 levels

I am converting a website using sass, nesting saves me from having to duplicate parent selectors (eg - sociialmedia, socialmedia li, sociallmedia img)
However, when the viewport is at mobile size, I need to change the styling of socialmedia img. Therefore I have create the code below:
my questions are:
1) Is this an efficient way to code (example 1), or is there a better method?
2) example 1 works , but is example 2 more efficient?
Example 1
#socialmedia {
float: right;
li {
float: left;
}
#include bp(mobile) {
img {
width: 1.1em;
}
}
}
Example 2
#socialmedia {
float: right;
li {
float: left;
}
}
#socialmedia img {
#include bp(mobile) {
width: 1.1em;
}
}
Many thanks,
It depends on what you mean by "efficient"—if you are referring to the efficiency of the compiled CSS code, both of your examples are equivalent; they both compile down to the same CSS.
If you are referring to developer efficiency, in my opinion the first example is more readable and maintainable (one of the nice features of Sass is the ability to nest media queries in context, which is what you are doing). Your example 1 is usually the approach I take.
So, in answer to your questions:
This is a perfectly acceptable method.
No.

GWT UiBinder style primary name not working

I'm trying to override a particular widget's style using UiBinder. What am I overlooking?
<ui:style>
/*************
* Note #1
*************/
.btnVote {
display: inline-block;
width: 50px;
height: 50px;
background: #fff;
margin: 5px;
text-align: center;
outline: none;
cursor: pointer;
}
/*************
* Note #2
*************/
.btnVote-up-hovering, .btnVote-down-hovering {
background: #ddd;
}
.btnVote-up-disabled, .btnVote-down-disabled {
border-shadow: inset 0 1px 3px #aaa;
}
.lblName {
line-height: 50px;
font-size: 40px;
padding: 5px 10px;
}
.clear {
clear: both;
overflow: auto;
}
.floatLeft {
float: left;
}
</ui:style>
<g:HTMLPanel styleName="{style.clear}">
<g:FlowPanel styleName="{style.floatLeft}">
/*************
* Note #3
*************/
<g:PushButton ui:field="btnVoteUp" stylePrimaryName="{style.btnVote}">
(+)
</g:PushButton>
<g:PushButton ui:field="btnVoteDown" stylePrimaryName="{style.btnVote}">
(-)
</g:PushButton>
</g:FlowPanel>
<g:FlowPanel styleName="{style.floatLeft}">
<g:Label ui:field="lblName" stylePrimaryName="{style.lblName}"/>
</g:FlowPanel>
</g:HTMLPanel>
Note 1: This rule is being applied and works fine
Note 2: This other rules seem to be getting ignored (they don't take effect)
Note 3: The default naming for the widget is being reset, hence Note 1 works fine. The base class is set to GOGXR1SCFI instead of gwt-PushButton
Why aren't they other rules working? When I hover the widget, the class GOGXR1SCFI-up-hovering is indeed set to the widget, but no accompanying CSS.
Thanks for your help.
Update
Something I ran into that gave me a hard time for a while: when you use the #external keyword, you must place a semi-column at the end of the #external statement, as in:
<ui:style>
#external .btnVote;
.btnVote {
...
}
</ui:style>
<g:FlowPanel styleName="{style.btnVote}"/>
One thing you could do is to create your CSS using ClientBundle, define all the different states there, then handle the various states manually. This way you don't need to define classes as #external, and GWT will optimize the CSS for you (shorten the names, only ship what gets used, etc.). This is especially beneficial for custom widgets and such.
The easiest way to deal with this is to write #external .btnVote, .btnVote-up-hovering, .btnVote-down-hovering, .btnVote-up-disabled, .btnVote-down-disabled at the top of your <style> section.
The original GWT widgets do not work well with CSS resources (like the one you have in your UiBinder). They depend on a primary style name that they append things like "up-hovering" to. This is terrible for CSS resources and UiBinders because when you type "up-hovering" it becomes things like SDLFJKS.
The button styles do NOT get obfuscated (so you can read "up-hovering"). Your UiBinder styles DO get obfuscated. You can never make them match as long as obfuscation is going on.
So, the #external keyword tells UiBinder and CssResource not to obfuscate certain styles. Now, when you use {style.btnVote-up-hovering}, that will actually come through to the final HTML, which is where these old-fashioned GWT styles will be applied.
I suspect you have CSS stylenames being obfuscated by GWT in your UIBinder. Reference - garbled css name when styling within UiBinder
Chose the approach you find easier to integrate in your proces. Cheers :)

Dealing with repeated selectors: Placing elements together or using classes?

Let say I have to repeat the color blue in my web page, what's most effective, time saving, and smart way of doing it?
Examples:
1. This example can mess up a little bit my css file.
#header, #content, #footer {
color: blue;
}
#header {
(other properties)
(other properties)
(other properties)
}
#content {
(other properties)
(other properties)
}
#footer {
(other properties)
(other properties)
(other properties)
}
2. With this example I'll end up modifying my html file more often.
css:
.default-color {
color: blue
}
#header {
(other properties)
(other properties)
(other properties)
}
#content {
(other properties)
(other properties)
}
#footer {
(other properties)
(other properties)
(other properties)
}
html:
<div id="header" class="default-color">
(content here)
</div>
<div id="content" class="default-color">
(content here)
</div>
<div id="footer" class="default-color">
(content here)
</div>
I'd prefer the first form. Adding a "default-color" class starts to move into the territory of adding style into your markup, and it's generally more flexible to keep them separate as much as possible. On the other hand, if you have a semantic class name you can add to all of those that makes sense, then that could work.
Otherwise, if you really do just want a "default" color, you can specify it on the html or div elements in your css, and just override it with more specific classes where you don't want elements to show up as the default color.
Consider authoring your stylesheets using SASS. This will allow you to manage duplication in a number of ways:
The simplest is to define a variable for your blue color and not worry about having to update multiple occurrences:
$color-corporate-base: #009
#header { color: $color-corporate-base; }
#content { color: $color-corporate-base; }
This will compile to regular CSS, putting the color values wherever they're referenced in your document:
#header { color: #009; }
#content { color: #009; }
You could use "mixins" to include rules into different selectors:
#mixin bold-color {
color: blue;
font-weight: bold;
}
#header {
#include bold-color;
background: black;
}
#content {
#include bold-color;
background: white;
}
This will compile to regular CSS, with the two included style rules in each selector. Of course, this creates duplication:
#header {
color: blue;
font-weight: bold;
background: black;
}
#content {
color: blue;
font-weight: bold;
background: white;
}
Even though that takes care of the duplication in your Sass stylesheet source making it easy to work with, the CSS output still has that duplication. (You could group the common styles with commas and put the different styles into their own selectors, but that's right back to your original question.)
There's a cool new feature of Sass that addresses this. It's called "selector inheritance". Check it out:
.bold-color {
color: blue;
font-weight: bold;
}
#header {
#extend .bold-color;
background: black;
}
#content {
#extend .bold-color;
background: white;
}
At a glance, this seems very similar to mixins, but look at the CSS output:
.bold-color, #header, #content {
color: blue;
font-weight: bold;
}
#header { background: black; }
#content { background: white; }
This lets you organize your selectors in your Sass stylesheet as you wish, and, you get the optimized output you want!
One way of doing it for standard compliant browsers would be to use !important.
Example:
div
{
color: blue !important;
}
I would prefer the first version, too. But remember that you can also use multiple classes within one element. So you could you something like:
.blue {
color: #00F;
}
.bold {
font-weight: bold;
}
<div class="blue bold">Text</div>

Resources