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.
Related
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
I always was told to take out multiple properties in your css that you use more then once, and add them all in one rule. Like below. (please excuse the poor example)
I always seen this:
.button, .list, .items { color: #444; }
With multiple rules, can't that leave a lot of clutter?
Only in css tutorials and examples Ive seen this:
.someColor { color: #444; }
And in the css, just add another class of '.sameColor'. (div class="button someColor")
I've never seen this and feels like it would leave less clutter in your CSS. Would this be okay? Or do you think it could leave with more clutter in your HTML ?
Try to name your classes independently of their visual effect. It is a nature of CSS to play with the design and layout without having to change the HTML. Class names such as .someColor or .left-sidebar are a bad practice. Colors and position can change.
And also apply rules to semantic HTML elements rather than adding classes on all different divs and spans. It should be obvious, although many people get this wrong.
CSS is a limited set of rules and that makes it a perfect creativity stimulator.
It's all based on personal preference. I've tried both methods and prefer the second method you listed, except with more generic class names such as middleParagraph or headerGraphic so it applies to an area rather than a specific color because colors can change.
Good classnames and IDs are the first place you should optimize. THEN move onto multiple class names.
Multiple classnames can help out quite a bit though, consider:
<div class="leftColumn">Left</div>
<div class="rightColumn">Right</div>
<div class="middleColumn hasLeft hasRight">I have padding-left of 210px and padding-right of 210px</div>
<!-- alternatively, you could have -->
<div class="rightColumn">Right</div>
<div class="middleColumn hasRignt">I have padding right of 210px</div>
<!-- or -->
<div class="leftColumn">Left</div>
<div class="middleColumn hasLeft">I have padding left of 210px</div>
<!-- or -->
<div class="middleColumn">I have no padding</div>
and your css
.leftColumn { width:200px; float:left; }
.rightColumn { width:200px; float:right; }
.middleColumn.hasLeft { padding-left:210px; }
.middleColumn.hasRight { padding-right:210px; }
The result is floated right/left columns and the center area compensates for them with padding. This means you can style your middleColumn how you want to (e.g. .middleColumn .otherCoolSelector ).
It's perfectly acceptable to apply multiple classes to HTML elements. The trick is to be judicious; I usually find that when I do this, the additional classes are additions or exceptions to the basic styling being applied. For example, here are some classes I occasionally add to an element that already has a class:
error -- to style the current element if the user entered invalid data
first -- to style the first element in a list or in a table row, e.g. to suppress padding-left
last -- to style the final element in a list or in a table row, e.g. to suppress margin-right
even -- to apply zebra-striping to alternate elements
hidden -- to hide an element if it's not currently relevant
These extra classes are typically generated dynamically with a server-side language like ASP.NET or PHP. They can also be added or removed on the client side with JavaScript, esp. with a library like jQuery. This is especially useful to show or hide elements in response to an event.
There are a lot of good answers here. The trick is finding out which one fits your situation best.
One thing to consider is your markup size. In a high-traffic situation, your markup size is critical to the speed of your page loads...every byte counts. If this is the case for you, then you may want to create more CSS classes and put less in your markup. That way, the client is caching more and your website is serving up less.
What you're suggesting is a bit like an in-line style, e.g. style="color:#444". So if you want to change the color of your element you'd have to make a change to the html, which means you've defined style as part of your content. Which is exactly what css is supposed to avoid.
Imagine if you'd included 'someColor,' multiple times across multiple html files and you decide some of these elements shouldn't have 'someColor,' after all, you've got a lot of files to go through.
I'd probably avoid the list option too, if I'm making a component, say a button, I want to find .mybutton class in my css file and see all the rules for that component, without having to go through all sorts of unhelpful global classes. Also if someone comes along and changes the color in our global class he may break my button, where as if the button controlled it's own styles it can't be broken in this way.
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?
So, I was wondering about the following: I have some main content div and a sidebar div and the CSS looks as follows:
.main{
width: 400px;
height: 300px
}
.sidebar{
width: 100px;
height: 300px;
}
I will not include now all the floating properties, since I am only interested in the following:
If I have a p element in both of them and I want them to have different styles, shall I give the paragraphs different classes or shall I define the style for them like this:
.main p{
color: blue;
text-align: right;
font-family: ...
}
And then for .sidebar p I would define something else...
The alternative would be to define a class p.myclass and define the style there.
I am trying to understand what a better practice is. Obviously I need less markup if I have 30 p elements in one of the elements with the first method, since I would have to give them all a class. On the other hand, I create CSS that I can only "use" for that parent element, instead of having a general definition that I can apply in more places in the site...
I noticed that in a lot of "big" websites, almost every single html element has its own class...
Any ideas?
I would definitely go ahead with the containment selector in the case you give. Fewer spurious classes in the markup is easier to maintain, and the rule ‘.main p’ says clearly what it does. Use your judgement to whether more complicated cases are still clear.
Note that ‘.main p’ selects all descendent paragraphs and not just direct children, which may or may not be what you want; accidentally-nested descendant matches are a potential source of bugs (especially for cumulative properties like relative font size). If you want only children to be selected you need ‘.main>p’, which unfortunately does not work in IE6.
This is one reason why many sites go crazy with the classnames: the more involved selectors that could otherwise be used to pick out elements without a classname, tend not to work in IE.
I vote for .main p and .sidebar p because:
It most clearly expresses your intention, as you're expressing it in English
It reduces the number of explicit classes you need in your HTML
If you change your mind later and want an explicit paragraph class with that style you can just add it: .main p, p.foo
In my opinion using nested selectors [ parent child relations ] will be harder to read and maintainable.
Evdn if the design changes in a frequent manner CSS should be less affected by that. So styling individual element will be easier in the case of maintainability.
If the element is going to exist in a predictable location then you can style it based on a parent element.
The major drawback of styling by class on each individual element is the bloat: If you have many of these elements, the CSS attributes will become a noticeable percentage of the transferred bytes. Especially for large documents, saving a couple of KB in the download can count. Even more so with AJAX requests or IE where parsing innerHTML is extremely slow.
I am finding it useful to define 'marker' css styles such as 'hidden' or 'selected' so I can easily mark something as hidden or selected - especially when using a tag based technology like ASP.NET MVC or PHP.
.hidden
{
display:none;
}
.newsItemList li.selected
{
background-color: yellow;
}
I don't especially feel like reinventing the wheel here and wanted to know what other things like this are useful or common - or if there are any pitfalls to watch out for.
Should I look at any specific css frameworks for other things like this? Plus is there a name for this type of css class that I can search by.
I agree with the other posters who say only to define what you need, rather than bloating your code with a bunch of unnecessary classes.
That being said, I find myself using the following on a constant basis:
.accessibility - visually hide elements, but keep them intact for screenreaders and print stylesheets
.clear - tied to Easy Clearing
.first-child and .last-child - easily assign styles to the first/last item in a container. This has been a lifesaver many times, and I prefer it over the poorly-supported :pseudo selectors
.replace - tied to Phark IR for transparent image replacement
Finally, I dynamically assign .js to the <html> element with
<script type="text/javascript">if(h=document.documentElement)h.className+=" js"</script>
This will allow me to define .js (rest of selector) styles to target only browsers with JavaScript enabled.
Let me give you an answer from a very novice web developer who has recently considered using CSS classes as "markers". Please don't take this as a definitive answer, as I may be completely wrong, but look at it as another point of view.
I was going to use some marker classes, too. I created one called .center to center the elements in a DIV tag. However, I was struck with the idea that I'm looking at CSS all wrong. I reasoned that CSS is supposed to define how an element is to be displayed without having to change the HTML page. By using marker classes, like .center for example, I would have to change BOTH the CSS and HTML if I wanted that DIV tag to be right-justified next month. So instead, I created a .latestHeader class (the DIV is to hold the "latest information" such as a news item), and in that class I set the text to align center. Now, when I want to change the justification of the text, I simply change the CSS for that DIV and I don't have to touch the HTML.
In regards to your question about CSS frameworks...
Personally I've always found the W3C has the most complex but also most accurate answer to any CSS question.
After many years of programming and playing around with CSS/HTML/PHP I agree with the above comment.
There is no harm in defining a marker for something to be centered or right-aligned using something along the lines of a '.center' or '.righths', but keep in mind as above that if you want to change a whole slab of text your work will be increased because you have to edit both CSS and HTML.
Defining the format for a whole section will mostly likely work out more logical, because if you want to change the section months down the trail, you just have to edit the format of one CSS declaration as opposed to editing each individual article.
CSS was however designed as the ultimate styling language which could allow an administrator to make a website look exactly what they want it to. Keep in mind though that excess CSS will increase the load on a server, will increase the time before your client sees your page and in line with the 'feng shui of web design' it is possible to go overboard with too much styling.
You should really grow this list on a need basis instead of soliciting a list of generic classes across the board--you'll only end up with bloat. If you want to avoid reinventing the wheel the look into some CSS frameworks (blueprint or 960). In some respect, generic classes like .center { text-align:center } do have some level of redundancy but often times they're needed. For example the following pattern which is all too common but should be avoided:
element.onclick(function(e){ this.style.backgroundColor = 'yellow' }
That's bad because you really ought to be using:
element.onclick(function(e){ this.className = 'highlight' }
The latter allows you to modify your styles by only touching the CSS files. But if a CSS class name has only one style element then you should probably avoid it because it doesn't make any sense to have it (.hidden in your example) and call it directly instead:
element.onclick(function(e){ this.display = 'hidden}
I often find myself keeping two classes in all of my stylesheets: "center" (which simply applies text-align: center;, and a float-clearing class that applies clear:both;.
I've considered adding a "reset" statement to all my styles, but haven't had a need for it yet. The reset statement would be something similar to this:
*
{
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
}
I reuse these often enough to include them in just about everything. They're small enough so I don't feel they bloat the code at all.