How can I identify css classes or ids that are referenced in code but missing in the css file? Is there any feature in firebug that i can use?
Thanks.
Firebug does not do this, nor any tool I can think of, because it is not a common or high-payback task.
However, it is a common task to find unused CSS rules, so that they can be trimmed. You can get a performance gain by trimming common CSS files. But removing ID's and classes from HTML pages does not help as much, and is more likely to break something (see below).
A good/common Firefox add-on for finding unused CSS rules, is Dust-Me Selectors. If you really want a tool to find ID's and classes that don't have CSS rules, you could probably take that add-on's source code as a good starting point for making your own Firefox extension.
Removing ID's and classes, just because they don't have a CSS rule is not a good idea and could break things.
ID's and classes can be in a page for a variety of reasons, not just as convenient handles for CSS.
Here are some reasons why an ID or class might be in a page:
To identify content to javascript, or mark targets for changing content. This is a must for all but the simplest dynamic pages.
Likewise, Id's and classes are used by plugins, extensions, spiders, RSS tools, etc.
As state or status indicators. EG: <p class="comment highest-rated">...
As easy substitutes for in-page anchors. These allow precisely-targeted hyperlinks without adding elements. Example link.
As part of good Semantic Markup, which is a best-practice that helps humans and our scripts understand, use, and maintain pages.
To help with targeting CSS.
Visual Studio, with the ReSharper plugin does this. It shows each missing class with a blue waved underline.
I am not sure which versions of what, but I use
Visual Studio 2013 Premium
ReSharper Version 8.2.3
Other versions might do as well.
You may find the question answered at this link useful, Javascript can be used to search for classes. Although, it may be useful to find the classes not used by CSS, beware of removing classes that may be necessary for other reasons (as others have pointed out).
When developing large application using ASP.NET (MVC or classic, doesn't matter), especially in large team, it is easy to produce a lot of messy, non-traceable CSS definitions. After some time we can end up not knowing why particular definition exists and what is its real effect considering style inheritance and cross-browser differences. Needless to say, changing anything in that mess is a risk and there are hundreds of ways how small change could affect the system.
I know some solutions to organize CSS stylesheets better, like predefined CSS "frameworks" or DotLessCss engine, but I still find it quite hard to cope with CSS as there is no such relationship between HTML markup and CSS styles like i.e. between interface and concrete class in C# code. I know this is by design to make presentation separate from the structure, but I believe it might be useful to have such a correspondence at development level.
Ideally, I need something that can enforce the team not to make messy CSS or be able to clean that mess up automatically. Do you know any resources that may help me, or any guidance how to manage my CSS definitions easily?
Let me ask for something a bit different:
Despite of my several years of web experience, I believe I would feel much more confident if some of my CSS could be moved into C# code, the same way as some of HTML generation is done by MVC HTML Helpers. It saves me writing a lot of unnecessary markup, still allowing to do so if needed. And it is more unit testable, easier to refactor using tools like ReSharper etc.
I don't need mergers and compressors of my CSS, I would like to be able to manage my CSS at declaration level.
Maybe there are some tools like that I'm not aware of, or maybe that idea is just wrong and wouldn't be useful?
The Firefox plugin Dust Me Selectors should help to clean up unused selectors.
That being said please read What's Wrong With CSS
P.S: Please make reading Jeff Atwood's blog a habit :)
It might be worth looking at how Telerik have their css structured in their MVC components.
Telerik
Maybe I formulated my question in wrong way, but I was hoping to be directed to some existing .NET APIs to define/generate CSS. Looks like there's nothing like that. And according to the discussion in parallel question, it may not be as useful as I thought.
Where multiple people can work on same css. is it possible to follow semantic name rules even in large websites.
If I would write all main css first time with semantic names . then what and how i should guideline/instruction to other developer to maintain css readability, validation . and to know quickly where other are adding their own css if required.
Right now every one just go to down and write required css classes ot IDs at bottom. and most of the time they don't write semantic names.
How to make good documentation/guide with text or with images for other developers on how to use css in whole site and how i wrote and what i used.
Update:
We use only one CSS file. I don't want to divide one css in multiple. Want to keep css managable even using one CSS file for whole site.
A similar question was asked a while ago: How to manage CSS Explosion there is a number of good answers there, and a number of great links (check out those provided by Paul D. Waite for example.)
Your main problem is going to be structuring the CSS file well. You will need clean rules for that: Keep everything grouped within the CSS file. Maybe using a CSS editor that can help you "navigate" through the style sheet is a good idea (similar to a programming IDE's "code explorer" feature). I don't know, however, if such a thing exists.
Other than that:
Using version control is a MUST. I personally am totally happy with centralized versioning using Subversion and TortoiseSVN; others believe in distributed version control like git or hg. For a team of designers, I think the centralized approach of Subversion is good, but that is a discussion in itself.
Maybe it's a good idea to split the style sheet into thematically relevant separate files to avoid chaos, and compile it using a tool like LESS or xCSS.
Define a clear, concise coding style. Use a CSS beautifier like Polystyle ($14 per license but money well spent) or Code Beautifier (based on CSS Tidy, haven't used it but looks interesting) and run it frequently on the file.
Have a number of links handy of pages that use the style sheet. Have people test those pages after they have made a change to the style sheet.
I would break down your css logically into groups and put each of these groups into its own css file. For example: header, footer, sidebar, content groups. Maybe some pages even deserve their own css file if big enough.
Similarly, give ids and classes on pages names that make sense. If it is a css rule for sub headings on a navigation bar, make sure it comes off as that in naming. Similarly to any other coding, don't use any magic numbers, etc. for naming.
See Modularizing web applications, includes specially CSS
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
Reading on another forum I've came across the world of CSS Frameworks. The one I've been specifically looking at is BluePrint. I was wondering if anyone else had come across CSS frameworks, suggest which is the best and if they are worth the effort?
CSS 'frameworks' are completely missing the point.
CSS is not like JavaScript, where you can include a base library/framework and then call functions and objects from it to do higher-level work. All a CSS framework can give you is declarative rules: some default browser-rule-reset stuff, some class styles to be forced to author your page to, and layout rules using 'float' and 'clear'. You can write that in a few lines of CSS yourself rather than pulling in the bloat of a hundred framework rules.
The 'grid layout' stuff in particular goes back to the bad old days of mixing your presentation into your markup. 'div class="span-24"' is no better than a table, you'll have to go back in there and change the markup to affect the layout. And all the frameworks I've seen are based around fixed-pixel floated boxes, making it impossible to create a liquid layout accessible on a wide range of window sizes.
It's backwards authoring, of use only for someone too scared to write a CSS rule.
So, nobody's responded to this question yet (although I've seen a few upvotes), so I am going to at least attempt to tackle the second question in this prompt.
CSS Frameworks are great; like any other framework, they reduce development time and let you get working immediately on site-specific design and CSS. They think about hard decisions so you don't have to.
Unfortunately, there are two downsides to using a framework (in general):
The framework dictates the overall structure and mechanics of your CSS code. Now, I'm not talking about a CSS reset (these are useful in their own right, but they are not true frameworks); I'm talking about an honest to good framework, that has already made the decisions about what semantic tags you are going to be using in your document, etc. As such, you are made dependent on the framework, and when there is a bug in the framework, you will most commonly have to fix it yourself.
Frameworks are not an excuse for being oblivious to cross-browser/advanced CSS issues. You will invariably run into them, just as you would working with a PHP or JavaScript framework. And you need to know how to deal with them. There is a common saying that you should write your own framework first, before using someone else's.
Taking a quick peek at Blueprint, I would not really call it a framework; maybe a reset with a few extra goodies on top.
I've looked at BluePrint and a few others and the only CSS 'framework' I'd recommend is YUI Grids
Pros:
Written by one of the best frontend engineers out there (IMO) (Nate Koechley)
Very small. 4KB
Very flexible (1000 different layouts)
Supports fluid-width (100%) layouts as well as preset fixed-width layouts at 750px, 950px, and 974px, and the ability to easily customize to any number.
Supports easy customization of the width for fixed-width layouts.
Template columns are source-order independent, so you can put your most important content first in the markup layer for improved accessibility and search engine optimization (SEO).
Self-clearing footer. No matter which column is longer, the footer stays at the bottom.
Layouts less than 100% are automatically centered.
Somewhat semantic classnames (better than top, left, right, etc)
Cons:
Lots of extra markup compared to hand-written HTML and CSS
Takes some learning to figure out how to do complex layouts
As other have posted, there are no real 'frameworks' for CSS. Reset stylesheets help a lot with layout too. I usually stick with a reset stylesheet and go from there. But if you don't have a lot of CSS experience YUI Grids could save you some time.
Compass is an actual CSS framework in the sense that it gives you not only templates (both YUI and blueprint), but also reusable constructs and higher-level declarations while still giving you familiar CSS syntax.
Take the time to study and understand (really understand!) a few css frameworks such as BluePrint and YUI, and css resets like Eric Meyer's. Then, take the time to put together your own reset and/or framework based on your work methods and the kind of sites you build.
Personally, I use most of the Eric Meyer reset with some classes and resets of my own, plus a few ideas from BluePrint and YUI.
I recently watched Eric Meyer give a presentation on CSS Frameworks in which he asked the question: "so which one is the right one for me?" He then answered the question by showing a blank slide. His point was, that there are certainly some useful concepts built into most resets and frameworks, but the one that will suit you the best is the one that you write for yourself (it's worth the effort).
Why use css 'frameworks'?
If you are pressured for time.
If you do not know css, and don't
know someone who can write it for
you.
If you are not overly precious about
standards etc.
I know programmers who have been really happy to use blueprint or 960, as it allows them to put together a layout on their own, without turning to a front-end developer. This is ideal for personal projects, or startups with limited resources.
If you have decent knowledge of CSS already, then presumably you have a decent library of stock layouts already, so you clearly won't need a framework.
However, if you're a beginner and just need to get something up and running, then you might turn to a framework, as it makes basic layout much simpler, and tackling browser compatibility also.
Having said all that, many frameworks out of the box do make use of some horrible class names etc. I know of some websites that have taken a framework as a starting point and then customised it with their own class and id tags. But clearly there's a bit of work involved in that rewrite too. Using something like Compass, as mentioned above, does help to get around that.
So, CSS frameworks - they can save you time, at the cost of semantics. They might also hurt your knowledge of CSS, but that is more up to how much you invest in learning the subject in general. Whether you make use of them is up to you.
You'd have to ask yourself how effective the available frameworks are at solving your problems. Do they meet your requirements?
By using a framework, you can set some rules or details at the pixel level and devote the rest of your time to implementing and producing. It's a massive productivity boost. If you find yourself spending time adjusting things by a few pixels late in the project (micro managing the design), it's a sign that a framework can be useful.
Tip #17 in The Pragmatic Programmer says: "Program close to the problem domain". Using a layer of abstraction can get you closer to solving the real problems of layout. For example: you might be able to concentrate of enhancing the user experience with the extra time you have rather than minor adjustments of pixels.
This is not to say you must sacrifice quality for quantity. It's about efficiency.
On a recent project, I made my own framework because we had very limited resources and the popular frameworks didn't do what I wanted. Then, I set up the design team's PSDs to snap to the same grid I deployed.
A framework doesn't have to be any particular implementation of CSS. It doesn't have to be something bloated you downloaded from the interweb or something implementing outdated ideas. It's just a technique for getting a job done. I wouldn't be surprised if some coders already have their own frameworks and don't even know it. In fact, if you consider the DOM as a set of default elements you extend with CSS, then that's a framework by definition.
I actually spent a good portion of the last 24 hours investigating this on my own, heh. My conclusion was that a nice reset (I used YUI Reset), and maybe something else to set baseline stuff (YUI fonts was worthwhile in my case; maybe the "extra goodies" of BluePrint would be in yours) is a good idea. But, a "framework"---which is generally something like YUI grids---is too restrictive, forcing you to use their class names, ids, etc. and rarely fitting into your site like hand-made CSS would.
So in short: resets seem pretty nice; it's good to eliminate all the variation in e.g. margin-vs-padding for lists, or paragraph spacing, or whatever. But that's as far as I would take it.
i haven't used it yes, but i think emastic may be a good alternative worth a check. it it is similar to blueprint in scope, but also supports elastic layouts (hence the name) and you can specify values in px, em or %, and even mix them.
Compass I think is amazing. Make sure you see the screencast.
I am using 960.gs for a few websites and find it very simple and easy and worth the effort. Saves me a lot of work on layout. Make sure to check the custom CSS generator which goes away with the fixed width of 960 pixels.
I think that this video presentation by Site Point CEO Kevin Yank will answer your question. I really recommend to watch it.
Compass lets you rename your framework's classes and ids with your own semantic names, so you might want to check it out. It also provides access to stuff you just don't get with plain-vanilla CSS such as mixins.
I'm astounded by so-called "CSS experts" who criticize these tools without really having digged in and used them. Are they essential? No. If you like your own framework (you do have one of your own, right? A CSS framework is just a carefully defined library--everyone should be using one) then by all means, keep on using it. No one is forcing you to use other frameworks and I don't see people who are using frameworks telling CSS purists that they are "doing it wrong."
Criticizing frameworks from such a standpoint just reveals an insecurity as well as an ignorance. For example, the notion is laughable that a person would use a tool like Compass without knowing CSS. You realize, right, that a framework generally doesn't write all your CSS for you? You can still break out and write your own CSS within the context of most frameworks. In fact, if you don't know CSS you might get frustrated quickly.
For myself, I appreciate having a framework because it is already documented, tested by hundreds of other users, and I can apply my own classes and ids via Compass. If I need something that the framework isn't suitable for, then I'll code my own.
Matt Raible of AppFuse fame had a CSS Framework contest a while back to develop CSS Frameworks for AppFuse. The results are published here. There are a few variations and I have used some myself because I use AppFuse and find them very good.
I should add that these CSS Frameworks work well because they are used in themed applications. That is, if you stick to the rules then switching from one to the next is as simple as changing one value in a properties file.
I have used BluePrint with much success on a site (I could mention the site here but I am sure the post would be marked as spam!). I am not sure if I will use it in the future though because one of the ideas of CSS i thought was to not have layout logic hard coded. You shouldn't have css elements called span-24 and span-12 to define the layout but something like searchBox and mainContent. At least thats how I see it.
Good link I found : Top 12 CSS Frameworks and How to Understand Them
Here is my blog post about CSS Frameworks When to use CSS framework?
The only way I know of to use a CSS framework and retain semantic markup is to use a higher-level abstraction. At the moment, Compass is the only one I'm aware of that's mature enough to use, but Nicole Sullivan seems to be doing some interesting stuff with her "Object-Oriented CSS" project.
I find Compass' clever use of Sass mixins to be brilliant, and a big step toward the Holy Grail of maintainable semantic markup. I don't think I'd want to use a framework like Blueprint or YUI without an abstraction such as Compass to keep presentation classes out of the markup.
BTW, there's a nice-looking CSS framework called Elastic that looks good enough that I'm considering adding it to Compass.
I believe CSS is about simplicity. The goal is to have one or two places to check when you're referencing between the HTML and your stylesheet. Adding more lines, and especially lines that you did not write and are probably not that familiar with, will exponentially increase the complexity thereby volatility of the CSS code.
I would suggest your layouts as you write them and develop a generic template system from that. While I love making CSS more modular, often and depending on the design, your CSS may be very case-specific and not modular at all.
I've used Blueprint on a few one-off sites and it definitely saved time, primarily in cross-browser testing.
It definitely sucks adding presentation code to your markup, although on the bright side it's readable. While I love the concept of "you can redesign without touching the markup", if you're producing a site where that really isn't going to happen anyways and you just need it done yesterday, Blueprint is something to look at.
There are also tradeoffs in what types of layouts it can feasibly create though. If you wireframe the site from the start on a strict grid, it will be much easier to transpose into the framework with a minimum of fuss.
I have used BluePrint and YUI but I always get frustrated with some of the names they give their id and classes.
To each their own, but I prefer doing things from scratch, but after a while you develop a process in which you will use your previous work and apply it to new projects and just make some tweaks to make the web site look the way you would like it to.
Be sure to use a good naming convention, just in case someone else down the road comes in to edit the css, then they will have a good idea what each style name is referring to.
Craig,
Compass is what you're looking for: it allows you to rename your Blueprint CSS classes like "span-24" with your own names. It also expands CSS functionality with variables and mixins. Truly, those that prematurely judge frameworks without having checked out Compass are "missing the point." It's sort of like those folks who told us years ago that we are missing the point by using CSS instead of HTML tables for our layouts.
-Matt
check out http://www.ez-css.org/. one of easiest and lightest css framework to work on. :)
Take a look to this demo:
http://www.richstyle.org/demo-web.php
This framework is based on idea that "HTML tags should be enough".
I think re-usability is the most important factor for choosing a software component, including a web framework.
For web frameworks developers, the more you commit to standards, the more you guarantee re-usability.