What You Build

I tweeted this yesterday and it seemed to resonate with some folks:

What I was feeling when I wrote that was a little tired of endless discussions on tech minutia and yearning for more focus on what we are building and discussion about why.

If you’re a reader of this site, you and I live in the same bubble. It’s a nice bubble. It’s full of smart people who like to chat about web design and development. I live it and love it.

It’s easy to get into a heated discussion about frameworks, what type of class names make the most sense, which optimization techniques are most important, or what part of your code base is should be responsible for styling. Those are great discussions that guide our industry.

But what is more important? The naming convention you chose or if your user can actually book a flight? Which state store library you picked or if you actually had the scarf your user was looking for? Which command line tool pulled your dependencies or whether someone was able to find and read the instructions to send in their court appeal?

I was trying to encourage people to build and think about what they are building rather than get too discouraged about the how. You’re building things for people and that’s such a big responsibility. One that outweighs technical choices, as important as they seem.

I enjoyed the pushback I got on it though.

Most of it centered around the fact that if you make poor tech choices, that limits the quality of what you build and slows your ability to change and adapt to changing user needs. Fair enough.

Good tech just might lead to directly better features and UX for your users. Fair enough. Good tech might be a differentiator between you and your competition. Fair enough.

My favorite was calling out the story of the three little pigs. If you aren’t familiar, there is a Big Bad Wolf that is trying to eat the piggies. Each of them built a house to protect themselves. I imagine you can guess which of the pigs did better: the one who built their house out of hay, or the pig who built their house out of bricks.

Fair enough.

Drew McLellan gets into this in All That Glisters, but focuses on the old vs new tech issue:

There are so many new tools, frameworks, techniques, styles and libraries to learn. You know what? You don’t have to use them. You’re not a bad developer if you use Grunt even though others have switched to Gulp or Brunch or Webpack or Banana Sandwich. It’s probably misguided to spend lots of project time messing around with build tool fashions when your so last year build tool is already doing what you need.

And this gem:

Software, much like people, is born with a whole lot of potential and not much utility. Newborns — both digital and meaty — are exciting and cute but they also lead to sleepless nights and pools of vomit.

He goes on to say that what you are building might help dictate your tech choices. Ah yes, the what. Not only is what your things does litearlly the only thing people care about, it also helps guide tech choices.


What You Build is a post from CSS-Tricks

Auto-Sizing Columns in CSS Grid: `auto-fill` vs `auto-fit`

One of the most powerful and convenient CSS Grid features is that, in addition to explicit column sizing, we have the option to repeat-to-fill columns in a Grid, and then auto-place items in them. More specifically, our ability to specify how many columns we want in the grid and then letting the browser handle the responsiveness of those columns for us, showing fewer columns on smaller viewport sizes, and more columns as the screen estate allows for more, without needing to write a single media query to dictate this responsive behavior.

We’re able to do that using just one line of CSS — the one-liner that reminds me of when Dumbledore just waved his wand in Horace’s apartment and “the furniture flew back to its original places; ornaments reformed in midair, feathers zoomed into their cushions; torn books repaired themselves as they landed upon their shelves…”.

This magical, media-query-less responsiveness is achieved using the repeat() function and the auto placement keywords.

Much has been written about this particular one-liner, so I won’t be elaborating on how it works. Tim Wright has a great writeup on this that I recommend reading.

To summarize, the repeat() function allows you to repeat columns as many times as needed. For example, if you’re creating a 12-columns grid, you could write the following one-liner:

.grid { display: grid; /* define the number of grid columns */ grid-template-columns: repeat(12, 1fr);
}

The 1fr is what tells the browser to distribute the space between the columns so that each column equally gets one fraction of that space. That is, they’re all fluid, equal-width columns. And the grid will, in this example, always have 12 columns regardless of how wide it is. This, as you have probably guessed, is not good enough, as the content will be too squished on smaller viewports.

So we need to start by specifying a minimum width for the columns, making sure they don’t get too narrow. We can do that using the minmax() function.

grid-template-columns: repeat( 12, minmax(250px, 1fr) );

But the way CSS Grid works, this will cause overflow in the row. The columns will not wrap into new rows if the viewport width is too narrow to fit them all with the new minimum width requirement, because we’re explicitly telling the browser to repeat the columns 12 times per row.

To achieve wrapping, we can use the auto-fit or auto-fill keywords.

grid-template-columns: repeat( auto-fit, minmax(250px, 1fr) );

These keywords tell the browser to handle the column sizing and element wrapping for us, so that the elements will wrap into rows when the width is not large enough to fit them in without any overflow. The fraction unit we used also ensures that, in case the width allows for a fraction of a column to fit but not a full column, that space will instead be distributed over the column or columns that already fit, making sure we aren’t left with any empty space at the end of the row.

At first glace of the names, it might seem like auto-fill and auto-fit are opposites. But in fact, the difference between is quite subtle.

Maybe it seems like you are getting extra space at the end of the column with auto-fit. But when and how?

Let’s take a look at what is really happening under the hood.

Fill or Fit? What’s the difference?

In a recent CSS workshop, I summarized the difference between auto-fill and auto-fit as follows:

auto-fill FILLS the row with as many columns as it can fit. So it creates implicit columns whenever a new column can fit, because it’s trying to FILL the row with as many columns as it can. The newly added columns can and may be empty, but they will still occupy a designated space in the row.

auto-fit FITS the CURRENTLY AVAILABLE columns into the space by expanding them so that they take up any available space. The browser does that after FILLING that extra space with extra columns (as with auto-fill ) and then collapsing the empty ones.

This may sound confusing at first, but it makes a lot more sense when you visualize this behavior. So we’ll be doing exactly that, with the Firefox DevTools’ Grid Inspector helping us visualize the size and position of our Grid items and columns.

Consider the following demo as an example.

See the Pen auto-fill vs auto-fit by Sara Soueidan (@SaraSoueidan) on CodePen.

The columns are defined using the repeat() function and have a minimum width of 100px, and a maximum set to 1fr , so that they would expand and equally share any extra space when it is available. As for the number of columns per row, we’re going to use the auto-placement keywords, so that we let the browser take care of the responsiveness of the grid and will wrap the columns into new rows when needed.

The browser will place and size the columns in the first example using the auto-fill keyword, and it will use auto-fit for the second.

.grid-container--fill { grid-template-columns: repeat(auto-fill, minmax(100px, 1fr));
} .grid-container--fit { grid-template-columns: repeat(auto-fit, minmax(100px, 1fr));
}

Up to a certain point, both auto-fill and auto-fit show identical results.

But they don’t have identical behavior under the hood. It just so happens that they will give the same result up to a certain viewport width.

The point at which these two keywords start exhibiting different behaviors depends on the number and size of columns defined in grid-template-columns, so it will differ from one example to another.

The difference between these two keywords is made apparent when the viewport gets wide enough to fit one (or more) extra column(s) (that) into the row. At that point, the browser is presented with two ways to handle the situation, and how it handles it largely depends on whether or not there is content to be placed into that extra column.

So, when the row can fit a new column, the browser goes like:

  1. “I have some space to fit a new column in there. Do I have any content (i.e. grid items) to go into that extra column? Yes? OK, all good. I’ll add the column into the row, and it will wrap into a new row on smaller viewports.”
  2. In the case where there is no content to place into a new column: “Do I allow this new column to occupy space in the row (and, therefore, affect the position and size of the rest of the rows)? or do I collapse that column and use its space to expand the other columns?”

auto-fill and auto-fit provide the answer to that last question in particular, and dictate how the browser should handle this scenario. To collapse or not to collapse, that is the question. And that is also the answer.
Whether you want it to collapse or not depends on your content, and how you want that content to behave in the context of a responsive design.

Let’s see how this works. To visualize the difference between auto-fill and auto-fit, take a look at the following screen recording. I’m resizing the viewport enough to create horizontal space that’s enough to fit one (or more) column(s) into the row. Remember that these two rows are identical, and have the exact same of content and column number. The only difference in this demo is that I’m using auto-fill for the first one and auto-fit for the second.

Notice what is happening there? If it’s still not clear, the following recording should make it clearer:

auto-fill behavior: “fill that row up! Add as many columns as you can. I don’t care if they’re empty — they should all still show up. If you have enough space to add a column, add it. I don’t care if it’s empty or not, it’s still occupying space in the row as if it were filled (as in: filled with content/grid items).”

While auto-fill fills the row with as many columns as it can, even if those columns are empty, auto-fit behaves a little differently.
auto-fit does, too, fill the row with more columns are the viewport width increases, but the only difference is that the newly added columns (and any column gaps associated with them) are collapsed. The Grid inspector is a fantastic way to visualize this. You’ll notice that columns are being added when you keep your eye on the Grid line numbers, which will increase as the viewport width increases.

auto-fit behavior: “make whatever columns you have fit into the available space. Expand them as much as you need to fit the row size. Empty columns must not occupy any space. Put that space to better use by expanding the filled (as in: filled with content/grid items) columns to fit the available row space.”

A useful tip to remember here is that the columns added in both cases (whether collapsed or not) are not implicit columns — that has specific meaning in the spec. In our case, we are adding/creating columns in the explicit grid in the same way as if we declared you wanted 12 columns, for example. So column number -1 will work to target the end of this grid, which it doesn’t if you are creating columns in the implicit grid. Props to Rachel Andrew for this tip.

Summing Up

The difference between auto-fill and auto-fit for sizing columns is only noticeable when the row is wide enough to fit more columns in it.

If you’re using auto-fit, the content will stretch to fill the entire row width. Whereas with auto-fill, the browser will allow empty columns to occupy space in the row like their non-empty neighbors — they will be allocated a fraction of the space even if they have no grid items in them, thus affecting the size/width of the latter.

Which behavior you want or prefer is completely up to you. I have yet to think of a use case where auto-fill would make more sense than auto-fit. Do you have any use cases? If you do, please feel free to share them in the comments below.


Auto-Sizing Columns in CSS Grid: `auto-fill` vs `auto-fit` is a post from CSS-Tricks

Five Design Fears to Vanquish With CSS Grid

CSS grid, along with a handful of other new CSS properties, are revolutionizing web design. Unfortunately, the industry hasn’t embraced that revolution yet and a lot of it is centered around fear that we can trace back to problems with the current state of CSS grid tutorials.

The majority of them fall into one of two categories:

  1. Re-creating classic web design patterns. Grid is great at replicating classic web design patterns like card grids and “holy grail” pages.
  2. Playing around. Grid is also great for creating fun things like Monopoly boards or video game interfaces.

These types of tutorials are important for new technology. They’re a starting point. Now is the time, as Jen Simmons says, to get out of our ruts. To do that, we must cast off our design fears.

Fear 1: Asymmetry

We’ve been trained in the era of frameworks that symmetric and orderly designs are better. It’s true that for many applications a symmetric design or an orderly grid of items is preferred. Yet, asymmetry has the ability to capture the eye and mind in a way that symmetry never will. Asymmetry is interesting in its disorder. If you’re nervous, you can always start small.

See the Pen Asymmetric Promo Grid by Bryan Robinson (@brob) on CodePen.

In this example, we have a simple promotional space. By using an asymmetric vertical and horizontal layout, we can make a stronger visual match between our icon and our button. This isn’t a large space, but it’s not afraid of using whitespace to draw the user’s eye where we want it to go.

Speaking of whitespace…

Fear 2: Negative Space

As we left the early 2000s, we decided it was OK if users had to scroll. We began introducing whitespace into our designs and most of this fell between rows of content. This made our designs much cleaner, but is vertical whitespace the only valid option?

In this example, the design incorporates negative space to create a sense of exploration through the page. By not using traditional content rows, the user’s eye is given a chance to scan and take things in at a slower pace.

See the Pen Experimental Homepage by Bryan Robinson (@brob) on CodePen.

Fear 3: Punk Rock?

There’s no shortage of design talks focused on the print layouts of the 1970s. It was a time of great stability in design tooling, which allowed creativity to bloom. With that came inspired and avant-garde design work that centered around the punk-rock scene.

So my question is this: Can we be punk rockers in web design?

In this example, the design doesn’t care about your preconceptions. Text overlap is a bug? Nope, it’s a feature. Images shouldn’t compete with each other? Survival of the fittest!

See the Pen Grid Overlap and Punk Rock Meditation by Bryan Robinson (@brob) on CodePen.

As this example asks, is this a good idea? It’s completely up for debate. What I know is this: our tools have matured and become more stable; now is the time for experimentation. Do we want the web to look the same year after year, or do we want to dream up new and exciting patterns?

Fear 4: New Sources of Inspiration

Sources of inspiration shouldn’t cause fear, but they do often cause headaches. Remember, inspiration doesn’t mean a 1:1 translation of a concept.

Punk rock graphic design

I mentioned earlier the amazing designs that came out of the ’70s and ’80s. Here are some links to continue researching punk-rock design:

  • The Art of Punk Posters by Sean O’Hagan
  • The Art of Chaos: Punk Rock’s Timeless Influence on Graphic Design by Simon Martin

Vintage movie graphic design

Studying film in college gave me a great appreciation for vintage movie graphic design. One of my professors once told me: “You should be able to tell the tone and subject of a film by its title cards.”

This is especially true of post-World War II films. Their title sequences and posters are a treasure trove of design ideas for setting a scene.

  • The Graphic Art of Film Title Design Throughout Cinema History by Rebecca Gross
  • Saul Bass on His Approach to Designing Movie Title Sequences by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences

Learn how to create graphic design grids

Graphic designers have been using grids for layout for centuries, and there’s a lot of great literature on the creation of these grids:

  • Video: Mark Boulton | Designing Grids | CSS Day 2017
  • Guity Novin’s A History of Graphic Design: Chapter 58, History of Layout Design and Modern Newspapers and Magazines
  • Layout Essentials: 100 Design Principles for Using Grids by Beth Tondreau

Fear 5: Fallbacks

It’s true that Grid has only 74% support in the U.S. (at the time of this writing).

That should not stop you from pushing your designs forward. There are plenty of strategies for starting with support for all browsers and then pushing forward into new patterns.

  • Using CSS Grid: Supporting Browsers Without Grid by Rachel Andrew
  • Video: Progressing Our Layouts by Jen Simmons
  • Falling Forward — Rethinking Progressive Enhancement, Graceful Degradation and Developer Morality by Bryan Robinson

What’s next?

It falls to each of us to push our industry forward. The technology is in place to challenge ourselves to create new and interesting designs. This doesn’t have to be as pointed and intense as some of these examples. It starts by realizing we can do amazing things … or we can stagnate.

How will you push the industry forward?


Five Design Fears to Vanquish With CSS Grid is a post from CSS-Tricks

​Wix.com: Make the Web Your Playground

(This is a sponsored post.)

Here’s something you can do: kick off 2018 with your own professional website. The only thing you’ll need to get started is your imagination, a little free time, and an innovative website builder.

Wix is the world’s most technologically advanced website builder. Sign up for Wix, choose a template, and start customizing it. Whether you’re a novice, a business owner, a sophisticated designer, or a professional website builder, you’ll have full control of your website – from design prototyping to production.

Wix takes care of all the heavy lifting. You get reliable, safe, secure hosting that you’ll never need to worry about. You get a custom domain name and email. To get started, all you need is a computer and a little time.

Don’t underestimate what you can do with Wix. There are all kinds of advanced design features and functionality if that’s something you need. The web is your playground. We’ve come along way from the website building platforms of the 90s. Now, you can create any kind of website you want and even collaborate with friends or coworkers.

Save yourself time and money, and head over to Wix.com to get started for free. Kick off 2018 strong with your own professional website and share your ideas with the world.

Direct Link to Article — Permalink


​Wix.com: Make the Web Your Playground is a post from CSS-Tricks

Front-End Tools: My Favorite Finds of 2017

Another twelve months have passed and I’m sure all of you have come across some interesting new coding techniques, technologies, CSS tricks (of course!), and other stuff that will make you more productive in 2018.

As some of you might know, I curate a weekly newsletter called Web Tools Weekly, in which I feature dozens of links every week to new tools, mostly focusing on stuff that’s useful for front-end developers. So it’s an understatement to say that I’ve come across lots of new tools over the past 12 months.

As I’ve done in years past, I’ve put together a brief look at some of my favorite finds in front-end tools.

And please note that this is not a list of the “best” or “most popular” tools of 2017 – this has nothing to do with popularity or number of GitHub stars. These are tools I believe are unique, interesting, and practical – but not necessarily all that well-known. They are some of my personal favorite finds of the year, nothing more.

tlapse

When working on a new project, especially a large and lengthy one, it’s easy to forget the number of changes the project’s layout has gone through. tlapse is a command-line utility that allows you to set up automated screenshots of your work at specified intervals, essentially giving you a visual timeline of your development in the form of a series of screenshots.

tlapse

The project has 1,100+ stars on GitHub, so it seems developers are finding a valid use for this, even though it seems a little narcissistic at first glance. Besides the novelty of being able to look back at the progress of your project, I suppose tlapse could also be used to send visual progress reports to clients, project managers, or other development team members.

You install tlapse as a global npm package:

npm install -g tlapse

Then run it in the background and start your work:

tlapse -- localhost:3000

By default, tlapse will take screenshots at one minute intervals and the screenshots will be added to the tlapse folder in the current project (i.e. where you execute the command):

Running tlapse with the default settings

Usefully, tlapse will also take a screenshot only if it detects the layout has changed in some way. So if the next scheduled screenshot is the same as the previous, it will skip it:

tlapse skipping a duplicate screenshot

If you want to use a different directory or change the screenshot frequency, enter these as options along with the regular command:

tlapse --every 3m --directory ./screenshots -- localhost:3000

As the name suggests, tlapse allows you to make a time lapse video or animated GIF that demonstrates the progress of your work. Here’s one I created while mock-building a Bootstrap-based layout:

tlapse example

Overall, this is an easy to use tool, even for those not very comfortable with the command line, and there are certainly some use cases for wanting to take screenshots of work in progress.

KUTE.js

JavaScript animation libraries are not rare. But KUTE.js caught my eye due to its main selling point: Performance. It can’t be denied that if you’re going to even consider complex animations in web apps today, you have to be prepared to deal with potential performance problems as a result of users accessing your app on mobile devices or on slower connections.

KUTE.js

The moment you visit the KUTE.js home page, you’re greeted with a colorful, complex, super-smooth animation, testifying to the truth of this tool’s claims.

In addition to performance, two other things I like:

  • A really nice API
  • An excellent callback system

You start to build your animations by creating tween objects. For example:

var tween = KUTE.fromTo( '.box', {backgroundColor:'yellow'}, {backgroundColor:'orange'}, {complete: callback}
);

The above example creates a fromTo() tween with various options. Inside fromTo() I’ve specified the selector for the target element, the start and end values for the property being animated, and a callback function to execute when the animation is complete.

You can also create tweens using to(), allTo(), and allFromTo(), with the latter methods letting you apply animations to collections of objects.

The callback functionality is very fine-grained, allowing you to run code (which could include calling a new animation altogether) at specified points, including:

  • When an animation starts
  • For each frame of the animation
  • When an animation is paused
  • When an animation is resumed after having been paused
  • When an animation is stopped
  • When an animation is completed

I’ve only scratched the surface of the features available. The documentation on the site is good, so check that out for the full API. The CodePen below is based on one of the demos from the API docs, which uses the .chain() method to chain multiple transform animations.

See the Pen Chain Transform Animations with KUTE.js by Louis Lazaris (@impressivewebs) on CodePen.

ScrollDir

Scrolling libraries have been popular for some time now. ScrollDir, from the developers at Dollar Shave Club, is a really simple, tiny, and intuitive utility to help you do a couple of simple things with scroll detection.

ScrollDir

Once you drop in the library, in its simplest form the script just works. You don’t need to call the scrollDir() method or anything like that. If you open your browser’s developer tools and examine the live DOM while scrolling up and down on a page running ScrollDir, you can see what it does:

As shown in the above GIF, this utility adds a data-scrolldir attribute to the page’s <html> element, which changes to one of two values, depending on scroll direction:

<!-- when the user is scrolling down -->
<html data-scrolldir="down"> <!-- when the user is scrolling up -->
<html data-scrolldir="up">

It defaults to “down” when the page hasn’t yet been scrolled, although it seems like it could benefit from having a “neutral” class as a third optional state.

With this attribute in place, it’s super easy to make custom changes to a page’s layout with nothing but CSS, taking advantage of CSS’s attribute selectors:

[data-scrolldir="down"] .header-banner { top: -100px;
} [data-scrolldir="up"] .footer-banner { bottom: -100px;
}

You can see the above code, combined with some simple CSS transitions, demonstrated in the CodePen below, which is similar to the example on the ScrollDir home page:

See the Pen ScrollDir basic demo by Louis Lazaris (@impressivewebs) on CodePen.

ScrollDir offers a few minor API options if you choose to use the non-auto version of the script. In either case it’s dead simple to use and I’m sure will come in handy if you’re building something that needs changes to occur on the page based on scroll direction.

CodeSandbox

Due to the popularity of web app development using libraries like React and Vue, a number of different IDEs and other code tools have come on the scene, aimed at helping developers who are working with a specific library or framework.

CodeSandbox

CodeSandbox is an online code editor for four of the current big players: React, Vue, Preact, and Svelte. This tool is somewhat in the same category as CodePen Projects, but is specifically designed for each of the four aforementioned libraries.

One of the nice features of CodeSandbox is the ability to add npm packages in the left side bar, under a pane called “Dependencies”. There’s a button called “Add Package” that allows you to search for packages in the npm registry:

Searching for npm packages on CodeSandbox

And if your app is missing a dependency, CodeSandbox will indicate this with an error message and an option to add the required package. In the following GIF, I’ve pieced together this React calculator app as an example project in CodeSandbox:

Installing missing dependencies on CodeSandbox

Notice the project still had a missing dependency, which I was able to install instantly. Here’s the CodeSandbox link to my version of that project.

Another feature that caught my eye is the ability to “peek” at the definition of a function in the code window:

CodeSandbox's Peek feature

Like many native IDEs, this allows you to be able to track down a function’s source, for quicker debugging and whatnot. There are also some clean inline code completion features, just like a native IDE.

There are tons more features I haven’t discussed here – including GitHub integration, deployment via ZEIT, and lots more – so be sure to poke around the different panels to get a feel for what you can do.

AmplitudeJS

AmplitudeJS is a dependency-free (we like that nowadays don’t we?) HTML5 audio player “for the modern web”. I think a lot of independent hobby-driven music makers with web development experience will appreciate this one for a number of reasons.

Amplitude allows you to build your own audio player with your own custom design and layout. To add a song list, you can add it via the main Amplitude.init() method in JSON format. Here’s an example with three songs:

Amplitude.init({ songs: [ { name: "Song Name One", artist: "Artist Name", album: "Album Name", url: "/path/to/song.mp3", cover_art_url: "/path/to/artwork.jpg" }, { name: "Song Name Two", artist: "Artist Name Two", album: "Album Name Two", url: "/path/to/song.mp3", cover_art_url: "/path/to/artwork.jpg" }, { name: "Song Name Three", artist: "Artist Name Three", album: "Album Name Three", url: "/path/to/song.mp3", cover_art_url: "/path/to/artwork.jpg" } ]
});

The code behind this player generates the audio using the Web Audio API, which is kind of like adding HTML5’s audio element, but with nothing but JavaScript. So you could technically generate a functioning version of the AmplitudeJS player with zero HTML. See this CodePen as an example, which auto-plays the only song in the playlist and has no HTML. Even if you examine the generated DOM, there’s nothing there; it’s just JavaScript. In that instance, I’m using the "autoplay": true option in the init() method (the default is false, of course).

If you want to see the flexible and varied audio players that can be built with AmplitudeJS, be sure to check out the examples page. The Flat Black Player is probably my favorite for its similarity to an old-school MP3 player. I’ve put it into a CodePen demo below:

See the Pen LeEgyj by Louis Lazaris (@impressivewebs) on CodePen.

In terms of configuring AmplitudeJS, here are some of the highlights.

All the info you provide in the JSON can be added dynamically to the player wherever you want. For example the following HTML would display the song name, artist, album, and file URL for the currently playing track:

<p amplitude-song-info="name" amplitude-main-song-info="true">
<p amplitude-song-info="artist" amplitude-main-song-info="true">
<p amplitude-song-info="album" amplitude-main-song-info="true">
<p amplitude-song-info="url" amplitude-main-song-info="true">

Notice the amplitude-song-info attribute, which defines which bit of data you want to inject into that element. You wouldn’t necessarily use paragraphs, but that’s one way to do it. You can see this in action in this CodePen demo.

With the metadata features, adding a running time or time remaining indicator for the current song is easy:

<p class="amplitude-time-remaining" amplitude-main-time-remaining="true">
<p class="amplitude-current-time" amplitude-main-current-time="true">

Another great feature is the ability to work with callbacks (which is pretty much a must for any good API). Here’s two of the callback options used in a simple example:

Amplitude.init({ songs: [ // songs list would be here... ], callbacks: { before_play: function() { document.querySelector('.msg').innerHTML = 'Song will now begin...'; }, after_stop: function() { document.querySelector('.msg').innerHTML = 'Song has ended!'; } }
});

You can see this in action in this CodePen. I’ve incorporated a rudimentary play/pause button to help with the callbacks. To see the final callback, you have to wait for the song to complete (pausing doesn’t trigger the after_stop callback). The button is built using nothing but a few HTML attributes, no extra scripting needed.

This is a really small sampling of what’s possible with this player and how flexible it is. The docs are solid and should get you up and running with this tool in no time.

Honorable Mentions

That’s a detailed look at five of my favorites from the past year. But there are lots of others worth examining that are similarly lesser-known. I’ve listed some of these below:

  • BunnyJS –An ES6-based front-end framework that advertises as “Simple like jQuery, better then jQuery UI, powerful like React”.
  • keyframes-tool –A command line tool to convert CSS animations to a keyframes object suitable for use with the Web Animations API.
  • Konsul – A React renderer that renders to the browser’s developer tools console.
  • across-tabs – Easy communication between cross-origin browser tabs.
  • svgi – A CLI tool to inspect the content of SVG files, providing information on the SVG (number of nodes, paths, containers, shapes, tree hierarchy, etc).
  • CSS in JS Playground – Play around with the code for just about any of the CSS-in-JavaScript solutions (JSS, styled-components, glamorous, etc).

What’s Your Favorite Find of the Year?

So that’s it. As I said at the start, this was not meant to be an awards ceremony for best tools of the year, but more of a look at some not-so-mainstream alternatives that are interesting and practical. I hope you find some of them useful. If you’re interested in continuing to keep up with the influx of new tools in front-end development, be sure to subscribe to my newsletter.

Have you stumbled upon (or built) something cool over the past year that would be of interest to front-end developers? Let me know in the comments, I’d love to take a look.


Front-End Tools: My Favorite Finds of 2017 is a post from CSS-Tricks

A Sliding Nightmare: Understanding the Range Input

You may have already seen a bunch of tutorials on how to style the range input. While this is another article on that topic, it’s not about how to get any specific visual result. Instead, it dives into browser inconsistencies, detailing what each does to display that slider on the screen. Understanding this is important because it helps us have a clear idea about whether we can make our slider look and behave consistently across browsers and which styles are necessary to do so.

Looking inside a range input

Before anything else, we need to make sure the browser exposes the DOM inside the range input.

In Chrome, we bring up DevTools, go to Settings, Preferences, Elements and make sure the Show user agent shadow DOM option is enabled.

Series of Chrome screenshots illustrating the steps described above.
Sequence of Chrome screenshots illustrating the steps from above.

In Firefox, we go to about:config and make sure the devtools.inspector.showAllAnonymousContent flag is set to true.

Series of Firefox screenshots illustrating the steps described above.
Sequence of Firefox screenshots illustrating the steps from above.

For a very long time, I was convinced that Edge offers no way of seeing what’s inside such elements. But while messing with it, I discovered that where there’s a will and (and some dumb luck) there’s a way! We need to bring up DevTools, then go to the range input we want to inspect, right click it, select Inspect Element and bam, the DOM Explorer panel now shows the structure of our slider!

Series of Edge screenshots illustrating the steps described above.
Sequence of Edge screenshots illustrating the steps from above.

Apparently, this is a bug. But it’s also immensely useful, so I’m not complaining.

The structure inside

Right from the start, we can see a source for potential problems: we have very different beasts inside for every browser.

In Chrome, at the top of the shadow DOM, we have a div we cannot access anymore. This used to be possible back when /deep/ was supported, but then the ability to pierce through the shadow barrier was deemed to be a bug, so what used to be a useful feature was dropped. Inside this div, we have another one for the track and, within the track div, we have a third div for the thumb. These last two are both clearly labeled with an id attribute, but another thing I find strange is that, while we can access the track with ::-webkit-slider-runnable-track and the thumb with ::-webkit-slider-thumb, only the track div has a pseudo attribute with this value.

Chrome screenshot of the structure we have inside a range input.
Inner structure in Chrome.

In Firefox, we also see three div elements inside, only this time they’re not nested – all three of them are siblings. Furthermore, they’re just plain div elements, not labeled by any attribute, so we have no way of telling which is which component when looking at them for the first time. Fortunately, selecting them in the inspector highlights the corresponding component on the page and that’s how we can tell that the first is the track, the second is the progress and the third is the thumb.

Firefox screenshot of the structure we have inside a range input.
Inner structure in Firefox.

We can access the track (first div) with ::-moz-range-track, the progress (second div) with ::-moz-range-progress and the thumb (last div) with ::-moz-range-thumb.

The structure in Edge is much more complex, which, to a certain extent, allows for a greater degree of control over styling the slider. However, we can only access the elements with -ms- prefixed IDs, which means there are also a lot of elements we cannot access, with baked in styles we’d often need to change, like the overflow: hidden on the elements between the actual input and its track or the transition on the thumb’s parent.

Edge screenshot of the structure we have inside a range input.
Inner structure in Edge.

Having a different structure and being unable to access all the elements inside in order to style everything as we wish means that achieving the same result in all browsers can be very difficult, if not even impossible, even if having to use a different pseudo-element for every browser helps with setting individual styles.

We should always aim to keep the individual styles to a minimum, but sometimes it’s just not possible, as setting the same style can produce very different results due to having different structures. For example, setting properties such as opacity or filter or even transform on the track would also affect the thumb in Chrome and Edge (where it’s a child/ descendant of the track), but not in Firefox (where it’s its sibling).

The most efficient way I’ve found to set common styles is by using a Sass mixin because the following won’t work:

input::-webkit-slider-runnable-track, input::-moz-range-track, input::-ms-track { /* common styles */ }

To make it work, we’d need to write it like this:

input::-webkit-slider-runnable-track { /* common styles */ }
input::-moz-range-track { /* common styles */ }
input::-ms-track { /* common styles */ }

But that’s a lot of repetition and a maintainability nightmare. This is what makes the mixin solution the sanest option: we only have to write the common styles once so, if we decide to modify something in the common styles, then we only need to make that change in one place – in the mixin.

@mixin track() { /* common styles */ } input { &::-webkit-slider-runnable-track { @include track } &::-moz-range-track { @include track } &::-ms-track { @include track }
}

Note that I’m using Sass here, but you may use any other preprocessor. Whatever you prefer is good as long as it avoids repetition and makes the code easier to maintain.

Initial styles

Next, we take a look at some of the default styles the slider and its components come with in order to better understand which properties need to be set explicitly to avoid visual inconsistencies between browsers.

Just a warning in advance: things are messy and complicated. It’s not just that we have different defaults in different browsers, but also changing a property on one element may change another in an unexpected way (for example, when setting a background also changes the color and adds a border).

WebKit browsers and Edge (because, yes, Edge also applies a lot of WebKit prefixed stuff) also have two levels of defaults for certain properties (for example those related to dimensions, borders, and backgrounds), if we may call them that – before setting -webkit-appearance: none (without which the styles we set won’t work in these browsers) and after setting it. The focus is going to be however on the defaults after setting -webkit-appearance: none because, in WebKit browsers, we cannot style the range input without setting this and the whole reason we’re going through all of this is to understand how we can make our lives easier when styling sliders.

Note that setting -webkit-appearance: none on the range input and on the thumb (the track already has it set by default for some reason) causes the slider to completely disappear in both Chrome and Edge. Why that happens is something we’ll discuss a bit later in this article.

The actual range input element

The first property I’ve thought about checking, box-sizing, happens to have the same value in all browsers – content-box. We can see this by looking up the box-sizing property in the Computed tab in DevTools.

Comparative screenshots of DevTools in the three browsers showing the computed values of box-sizing for a range input.
The box-sizing of the range input, comparative look at all three browsers (from top to bottom: Chrome, Firefox, Edge).

Sadly, that’s not an indication of what’s to come. This becomes obvious once we have a look at the properties that give us the element’s boxes – margin, border, padding, width, height.

By default, the margin is 2px in Chrome and Edge and 0 .7em in Firefox.

Before we move on, let’s see how we got the values above. The computed length values we get are always px values.

However, Chrome shows us how browser styles were set (the user agent stylesheet rule sets on a grey background). Sometimes the computed values we get weren’t explicitly set, so that’s no use, but in this particular case, we can see that the margin was indeed set as a px value.

Screenshot of Chrome DevTools showing where to look for how browser styles were set.
Tracing browser styles in Chrome, the margin case.

Firefox also lets us trace the source of the browser styles in some cases, as shown in the screenshot below:

Screenshot of Firefox DevTools showing where to look for how browser styles were set.
Tracing browser styles in Firefox and how this fails for the margin of our range input.

However, that doesn’t work in this particular case, so what we can do is look at the computed values in DevTools and then checking whether these computed values change in one of the following situations:

  1. When changing the font-size on the input or on the html, which entails is was set as an em or rem value.
  2. When changing the viewport, which indicates the value was set using % values or viewport units. This can probably be safely skipped in a lot of cases though.
Gif recording showing how changing the font-size on the range input changes the margin value in Firefox.
Changing the font-size of the range input in Firefox also changes its margin value.

The same goes for Edge, where we can trace where user styles come from, but not browser styles, so we need to check if the computed px value depends on anything else.

Gif recording showing how changing the font-size on the range input doesn't change the margin value in Edge.
Changing the font-size of the range input in Edge doesn’t change its margin value.

In any event, this all means margin is a property we need to set explicitly in the input[type='range'] if we want to achieve a consistent look across browsers.

Since we’ve mentioned the font-size, let’s check that as well. Sure enough, this is also inconsistent.

First off, we have 13.3333px in Chrome and, in spite of the decimals that might suggest it’s the result of a computation where we divided a number by a multiple of 3, it seems to have been set as such and doesn’t depend on the viewport dimensions or on the parent or root font-size.

Screenshot of Chrome DevTools showing the user agent rule where the font-size for inputs is set.
The font-size of the range input in Chrome.

Firefox shows us the same computed value, except this seems to come from setting the font shorthand to -moz-field, which I was first very confused about, especially since background-color is set to -moz-Field, which ought to be the same since CSS keywords are case-insensitive. But if they’re the same, then how can it be a valid value for both properties? Apparently, this keyword is some sort of alias for making the input look like what any input on the current OS looks like.

Screenshot of Firefox DevTools showing how the font-size for inputs is set.
The font-size of the range input in Firefox.

Finally, Edge gives us 16px for its computed value and this seems to be either inherited from its parent or set as 1em, as illustrated by the recording below:

Recording of Edge DevTools showing the computed value of font-size for inputs and how this changes when changing the font-size of the parent.
The font-size of the range input in Edge.

This is important because we often want to set dimensions of sliders and controls (and their components) in general using em units so that their size relative to that of the text on the page stays the same – they don’t look too small when we increase the size of the text or too big when we decrease the size of the text. And if we’re going to set dimensions in em units, then having a noticeable font-size difference between browsers here will result in our range input being smaller in some browsers and bigger in others.

For this reason, I always make sure to explicitly set a font-size on the actual slider. Or I might set the font shorthand, even though the other font-related properties don’t matter here at this point. Maybe they will in the future, but more on that later, when we discuss tick marks and tick mark labels.

Before we move on to borders, let’s first see the color property. In Chrome this is rgb(196,196,196) (set as such), which makes it slightly lighter than silver (rgb(192,192,192)/ #c0c0c0), while in Edge and Firefox, the computed value is rgb(0,0,0) (which is solid black). We have no way of knowing how this value was set in Edge, but in Firefox, it was set via another similar keyword, -moz-fieldtext.

Comparative screenshots of DevTools in the three browsers showing the computed values of color for a range input.
The color of the range input, comparative look at all three browsers (from top to bottom: Chrome, Firefox, Edge).

The border is set to initial in Chrome, which is equivalent to none medium currentcolor (values for border-style, border-width and border-color). How thick a medium border is exactly depends on the browser, though it’s at least as thick as a thin one everywhere. In Chrome in particular, the computed value we get here is 0.

Screenshot of Chrome DevTools showing how the border for inputs is set.
The border of the range input in Chrome.

In Firefox, we also have a none medium currentcolor value set for the border, though here medium seems to be equivalent to 0.566667px, a value that doesn’t depend on the element or root font-size or on the viewport dimensions.

Screenshot of Firefox DevTools showing how the border for inputs is set.
The border of the range input in Firefox.

We can’t see how everything was set in Edge, but the computed values for border-style and border-width are none and 0 respectively. The border-color changes when we change the color property, which means that, just like in the other browsers, it’s set to currentcolor.

Recording of Edge DevTools showing the computed values of border properties for inputs and how border-color changes when changing the element's color property.
The border of the range input in Edge.

The padding is 0 in both Chrome and Edge.

Comparative screenshots of DevTools in Chrome and Edge browsers showing the computed values of padding for a range input.
The padding of the range input, comparative look at Chrome (top) and Edge (bottom).

However, if we want a pixel-perfect result, then we need to set it explicitly because it’s set to 1px in Firefox.

Screenshot of Firefox DevTools showing how the padding for inputs is set.
The padding of the range input in Firefox.

Now let’s take another detour and check the backgrounds before we try to make sense of the values for the dimensions. Here, we get that the computed value is transparent/ rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) in Edge and Firefox, but rgb(255,255,255) (solid white) in Chrome.

Comparative screenshots of DevTools in the three browsers showing the computed values of background-color for a range input.
The background-color of the range input, comparative look at all three browsers (from top to bottom: Chrome, Firefox, Edge).

And… finally, let’s look at the dimensions. I’ve saved this for last because here is where things start to get really messy.

Chrome and Edge both give us 129px for the computed value of the width. Unlike with previous properties, we can’t see this being set anywhere in Chrome, which would normally lead me to believe it’s something that depends either on the parent, stretching horizontally to fit as all block elements do (which is definitely not the case here) or on the children. There’s also a -webkit-logical-width property taking the same 129px value in the Computed panel. I was a bit confused by this at first, but it turns out it’s the writing-mode relative equivalent – in other words, it’s the width for horizontal writing-mode and the height for vertical writing-mode.

Gif recording showing how changing the font-size on the range input doesn't change its width value in Chrome.
Changing the font-size of the range input in Chrome doesn’t change its width value.

In any event, it doesn’t depend on the font-size of the input itself or of that of the root element nor on the viewport dimensions in either browser.

Gif recording showing how changing the font-size on the range input doesn't change its width value in Edge.
Changing the font-size of the range input in Edge doesn’t change its width value.

Firefox is the odd one out here, returning a computed value of 160px for the default width. This computed value does however depend on the font-size of the range input – it seems to be 12em.

Gif recording showing how changing the font-size on the range input also changes its width value in Firefox.
Changing the font-size of the range input in Firefox also changes its width value.

In the case of the height, Chrome and Edge again both agree, giving us a computed value of 21px. Just like for the width, I cannot see this being set anywhere in the user agent stylesheet in Chrome DevTools, which normally happens when the height of an element depends on its content.

Gif recording showing how changing the font-size on the range input doesn't change its height value in Chrome.
Changing the font-size of the range input in Chrome doesn’t change its height value.

This value also doesn’t depend on the font-size in either browser.

Gif recording showing how changing the font-size on the range input doesn't change its height value in Edge.
Changing the font-size of the range input in Edge doesn’t change its height value.

Firefox is once again different, giving us 17.3333px as the computed value and, again, this depends on the input‘s font-size – it’s 1.3em.

Gif recording showing how changing the font-size on the range input also changes its height value in Firefox.
Changing the font-size of the range input in Firefox also changes its height value.

But this isn’t worse than the margin case, right? Well, so far, it isn’t! But that’s just about to change because we’re now moving on to the track component.

The range track component

There’s one more possibility regarding the actual input dimensions that we haven’t yet considered: that they’re influenced by those of its components. So let’s explicitly set some dimensions on the track and see whether that influences the size of the slider.

Apparently, in this situation, nothing changes for the actual slider in the case of the width, but we can spot more inconsistencies when it comes to the track width, which, by default, stretches to fill the content-box of the parent input in all three browsers.

In Firefox, if we explicitly set a width, any width on the track, then the track takes this width we give it, expanding outside of its parent slider or shrinking inside, but always staying middle aligned with it. Not bad at all, but, sadly, it turns out Firefox is the only browser that behaves in a sane manner here.

Gif recording showing how changing the width on the track component doesn't influence the width of the range input in Firefox only that of the track. Furthermore, the track and the actual range input are always middle aligned horizontally.
Explicitly setting a width on the track changes the width of the track in Firefox, but not that of the parent slider.

In Chrome, the track width we set is completely ignored and it looks like there’s no sane way of making it have a value that doesn’t depend on that of the parent slider.

Gif recording showing how changing the width on the track component doesn't do anything in Chrome.
Changing the width of the track doesn’t do anything in Chrome (computed value remains 129px).

As for insane ways, using transform: scaleX(factor) seems to be the only way to make the track wider or narrower than its parent slider. Do note doing this also causes quite a few side effects. The thumb is scaled horizontally as well and its motion is limited to the scaled down track in Chrome and Edge (as the thumb is a child of the track in these browsers), but not in Firefox, where its size is preserved and its motion is still limited to the input, not the scaled down track (since the track and thumb are siblings here). Any lateral padding, border or margin on the track is also going to be scaled.

Moving on to Edge, the track again takes any width we set.

Gif recording showing how Edge allows us to change the width of the track without changing that of the parent slider.
Edge also allows us to set a track width that’s different from that of the parent slider.

This is not the same situation as Firefox however. While setting a width greater than that of the parent slider on the track makes it expand outside, the two are not middle aligned. Instead, the left border limit of the track is left aligned with the left content limit of its range input parent. This alignment inconsistency on its own wouldn’t be that much of a problem – a margin-left set only on ::-ms-track could fix it.

However, everything outside of the parent slider’s content-box gets cut out in Edge. This is not equivalent to having overflow set to hidden on the actual input, which would cut out everything outside the padding-box, not content-box. Therefore, it cannot be fixed by setting overflow: visible on the slider.

This clipping is caused by the elements between the input and the track having overflow: hidden, but, since we cannot access these, we also cannot fix this problem. Setting everything such that no component (including its box-shadow) goes outside the content-box of the range is an option in some cases, but not always.

For the height, Firefox behaves in a similar manner it did for the width. The track expands or shrinks vertically to the height we set without affecting the parent slider and always staying middle aligned to it vertically.

Gif recording showing how changing the height on the track component doesn't influence the height of the range input in Firefox only that of the track. Furthermore, the track and the actual range input are always middle aligned vertically.
Explicitly setting a height on the track changes the height of the track in Firefox, but not that of the parent slider.

The default value for this height with no styles set on the actual input or track is .2em.

Gif recording showing how changing the font-size on the track changes its computed height in Firefox.
Changing the font-size on the track changes its computed height in Firefox.

Unlike in the case of the width, Chrome allows the track to take the height we set and, if we’re not using a % value here, it also makes the content-box of the parent slider expand or shrink such that the border-box of the track perfectly fits in it. When using a % value, the actual slider and the track are middle aligned vertically.

Gif recording showing how changing the height on the track component doesn't influence the height of the range input in Chrome if the value we set is a % value. Otherwise, the track expands or shrinks such that the track perfectly fits in. Furthermore, in the % case, the track and the actual range input are always middle-aligned vertically.
Explicitly setting a height on the track in % changes the height of the track in Chrome, but not that of the parent slider. Using other units, the actual range input expands or shrinks vertically such that the track perfectly fits inside.

The computed value we get for the height without setting any custom styles is the same as for the slider and doesn’t change with the font-size.

Gif recording showing how changing the font-size on the track doesn't change its computed height in Chrome.
Changing the font-size on the track doesn’t change its computed height in Chrome.

What about Edge? Well, we can change the height of the track independently of that of the parent slider and they both stay middle aligned vertically, but all of this is only as long as the track height we set is smaller than the initial height of the actual input. Above that, the track’s computed height is always equal to that of the parent range.

Gif recording showing how changing the height on the track component doesn't influence the height of the range input in Edge. The track and the actual range input are always middle aligned vertically. However, the height of the track is limited by that of the parent slider.
Explicitly setting a height on the track in Edge doesn’t change the height of the parent slider and the two are middle aligned. However, the height of the track is limited by that of the actual input.

The initial track height is 11px and this value doesn’t depend on the font-size or on the viewport.

Gif recording showing how changing the font-size on the track doesn't change its computed height in Edge.
Changing the font-size on the track doesn’t change its computed height in Edge.

Moving on to something less mindbending, we have box-sizing. This is border-box in Chrome and content-box in Edge and Firefox so, if we’re going to have a non-zero border or padding, then box-sizing is a property we need to explicitly set in order to even things out.

Comparative screenshots of DevTools in the three browsers showing the computed values of box-sizing for the track.
The box-sizing of the track, comparative look at all three browsers (from top to bottom: Chrome, Firefox, Edge).

The default track margin and padding are both 0 in all three browsers – finally, an oasis of consistency!

Comparative screenshots of DevTools in the three browsers showing the computed values of margin for the track.
The box-sizing of the track, comparative look at all three browsers (from top to bottom: Chrome, Firefox, Edge).

The values for the color property can be inherited from the parent slider in all three browsers.

Comparative screenshots of DevTools in Chrome and Firefox browsers showing the computed values of color for the track.
The color of the track, comparative look at Chrome (top) and Firefox (bottom).

Even so, Edge is the odd one here, changing it to white, though setting it to initial changes it to black, which is the value we have for the actual input.

Resetting the color to initial in Edge.
Resetting the color to initial in Edge.

Setting -webkit-appearance: none on the actual input in Edge makes the computed value of the color on the track transparent (if we haven’t explicitly set a color value ourselves). Also, once we add a background on the track, the computed track color suddenly changes to black.

Adding a background on the track in Edge changes its computed color from white to black.
Unexpected consequence of adding a background track in Edge.

To a certain extent, the ability to inherit the color property is useful for theming, though inheriting custom properties can do a lot more here. For example, consider we want to use a silver for secondary things and an orange for what we want highlighted. We can define two CSS variables on the body and then use them across the page, even inside our range inputs.

body { --fading: #bbb; --impact: #f90
} h2 { border-bottom: solid .125em var(--impact) } h6 { color: var(--fading) } [type='range']:focus { box-shadow: 0 0 2px var(--impact) } @mixin track() { background: var(--fading) } @mixin thumb() { background: var(--impact) }

Sadly, while this works in Chrome and Firefox, Edge doesn’t currently allow custom properties on the range inputto be inherited down to its components.

Screenshots of the expected result (and what we get in Chrome and Firefox) vs. the result we get in Edge (neither the thumb or the track show up)
Expected result (left) vs. result in Edge (right), where no track or thumb show up (live demo).

By default, there is no border on the track in Chrome or Firefox (border-width is 0 and border-style is none).

Comparative screenshots of DevTools in Chrome and Firefox browsers showing the computed values of border for the track.
The border of the track, comparative look at Chrome (top) and Firefox (bottom).

Edge has no border on the track if we have no background set on the actual input and no background set on the track itself. However, once that changes, we get a thin (1px) black track border.

Adding a background on the track or actual input in Edge gives the track a solid 1px black border.
Another unexpected consequence of adding a track or parent slider background in Edge.

The default background-color is shown to be inherited as white, but then somehow we get a computed value of rgba(0,0,0,0) (transparent) in Chrome (both before and after -webkit-appearance: none). This also makes me wonder how come we can see the track before, since there’s no background-color or background-image to give us anything visible. Firefox gives us a computed value of rgb(153,153,153) (#999) and Edge transparent (even though we might initially think it’s some kind of silver, that is not the background of the ::-ms-track element – more on that a bit later).

Comparative screenshots of DevTools in the three browsers showing the computed values of background-color for the track.
The background-color of the track, comparative look at all three browsers (from top to bottom: Chrome, Firefox, Edge).

The range thumb component

Ready for the most annoying inconsistency yet? The thumb moves within the limits of the track’s content-box in Chrome and within the limits of the actual input‘s content-box in Firefox and Edge, even when we make the track longer or shorter than the input (Chrome doesn’t allow this, forcing the track’s border-box to fit the slider’s content-box horizontally).

The way Chrome behaves is illustrated below:

Chrome only moves the thumb within the left and right limits of the track's content-box.
Recording of the thumb motion in Chrome from one end of the slider to the other.

The padding is transparent, while the content-box and the border are semitransparent. We’ve used orange for the actual slider, red for the track and purple for the thumb.

For Firefox, things are a bit different:

Firefox moves the thumb within the left and right limits of the actual range input's content-box.
Recording of the thumb motion in Firefox from one end of the slider to the other (the three cases from top to bottom: the border-box of the track perfectly fits the content-box of the slider horizontally, it’s longer and it’s shorter).

In Chrome, the thumb is the child of the track, while in Firefox it’s its sibling, so, looking at it this way, it makes sense that Chrome would move the thumb within the limits of the track’s content-box and Firefox would move it within the limits of the slider’s content-box. However, the thumb is inside the track in Edge too and it still moves within the limits of the slider’s content-box.

Animated gif. Shows how Edge moves the thumb within the left and right limits of the actual range input's content-box.
Recording of the thumb motion in Edge from one end of the slider to the other (the three cases from top to bottom: the border-box of the track perfectly fits the content-box of the slider horizontally, it’s longer and it’s shorter).

While this looks very strange at first, it’s because Edge forces the position of the track to static and we cannot change that, even if we set it to relative with !important.

Animated gif. Recording of the following steps: 1) checking the computed value of the position property on the track in Edge DevTools - it's static 2) setting ::-ms-track { position: relative } 3) checking the computed value again - it's still static 4) adding !important to the rule previously set on the track 5) checking the computed value a third time - annoyingly, it's still static!
Trying (and failing) to change the value of the position property on the track in Edge.

This means we may style our slider exactly the same for all browsers, but if its content-box doesn’t coincide to that of its track horizontally (so if we have a non-zero lateral padding or border on the track), it won’t move within the same limits in all browsers.

Furthermore, if we scale the track horizontally, then Chrome and Firefox behave as they did before, the thumb moving within the limits of the now scaled track’s content-box in Chrome and within the limits of the actual input‘s content-box in Firefox. However, Edge makes the thumb move within an interval whose width equals that of the track’s border-box, but starts from the left limit of the track’s padding-box, which is probably explained by the fact that the transform property creates a stacking context.

Edge moves the thumb within an interval equal to the scaled track's border-box, starting from the left limit of the padding-box
Recording of the thumb motion in Edge when the track is scaled horizontally.

Vertically, the thumb is middle-aligned to the track in Firefox, seemingly middle-aligned in Edge, though I’ve been getting very confusing different results over multiple tests of the same situation, and the top of its border-box is aligned to the top of the track’s content-box in Chrome once we’ve set -webkit-appearance: none on the actual input and on the thumb so that we can style the slider.

While the Chrome decision seems weird at first, is annoying in most cases and lately has even contributed to breaking things in… Edge (but more about that in a moment), there is some logic behind it. By default, the height of the track in Chrome is determined by that of the thumb and if we look at things this way, the top alignment doesn’t seem like complete insanity anymore.

However, we often want a thumb that’s bigger than the track’s height and is middle aligned to the track. We can correct the Chrome alignment with margin-top in the styles we set on the ::-webkit-slider-thumb pseudo.

Unfortunately, this way we’re breaking the vertical alignment in Edge. This is because Edge now applies the styles set via ::-webkit-slider-thumb as well. At least we have the option of resetting margin-top to 0 in the styles we set on ::-ms-thumb. The demo below shows a very simple example of this in action.

See the Pen by thebabydino (@thebabydino) on CodePen.

Just like in the case of the track, the value of the box-sizing property is border-box in Chrome and content-box in Edge and Firefox, so, for consistent results across browsers, we need to set it explicitly if we want to have a non-zero border or padding on the thumb.

The margin and padding are both 0 by default in all three browsers.

After setting -webkit-appearance: none on both the slider and the thumb (setting it on just one of the two doesn’t change anything), the dimensions of the thumb are reset from 10x21 (dimensions that don’t depend on the font-size) to 129x0 in Chrome. The height of the track and actual slider also get reset to 0, since they depend on that of their content (the thumb inside, whose height has become 0).

Animated gif. Shows Chrome DevTools with the thumb selected. Changing the font-size on the thumb doesn't change its dimensions. Setting -webkit-appearance: none on both the thumb and the actual slider resets its dimensions to 129x0
The thumb box model in Chrome.

This is also why explicitly setting a height on the thumb makes the track take the same height.

According to Chrome DevTools, there is no border in either case, even though, before setting -webkit-appearance: none, it sure looks like there is one.

Screenshot. Before setting -webkit-appearance:none, it looks like there is a border on the thumb, even though Chrome DevTools says there isn't.
How the slider looks in Chrome before setting -webkit-appearance: none.

If that’s not a border, it might be an outline or a box-shadow with no blur and a positive spread. But, according to Chrome DevTools, we don’t have an outline, nor box-shadow on the thumb.

Screenshot. The computed value for outline in Chrome DevTools is none 0px rgb(196, 196, 196), while that for box-shadow is none.
Computed values for outline and box-shadow in Chrome DevTools.

Setting -webkit-appearance: none in Edge makes the thumb dimensions go from 11x11 (values that don’t depend on the font-size) to 0x0. Explicitly setting a height on the thumb makes the track take the initial height (11px).

Animated gif. Shows Edge DevTools with the thumb selected. Changing the font-size on the thumb doesn't change its dimensions. Setting -webkit-appearance: none on both the thumb and the actual slider resets its dimensions to 0x0
The thumb box model in Edge.

In Edge, there’s initially no border on the thumb. However, after setting a background on either the actual range input or any of its components, we suddenly get a solid 1px white lateral one (left and right, but not top and bottom), which visually turns to black in the :active state (even though Edge DevTools doesn’t seem to notice that). Setting -webkit-appearance: none removes the border-width.

Animated gif. Shows Edge DevTools with the thumb selected. There is originally no border, but setting a background on either the slider or its components makes the lateral borders solid 1px white ones. Setting -webkit-appearance: none on both the thumb and the actual slider removes this border (as well as making both thumb dimensions 0).
The thumb border in Edge.

In Firefox, without setting a property like background on the range input or its components, the dimensions of the thumb are 1.666x3.333 and, in this case, they don’t change with the font-size. However, if we set something like background: transparent on the slider (or any background value on its components), then both the width and height of the thumb become 1em.

Animated gif. Shows Firefox DevTools with the thumb selected. Changing the font-size on the thumb doesn't change initially its dimensions. However, after setting a background on the actual input, the thumb dimensions become equal to the font-size (1em).
The thumb box model in Firefox.

In Firefox, if we are to believe what we see in DevTools, we initially have a solid thick grey (rgb(153, 153, 153)) border.

Screenshot. Shows Firefox DevTools displaying the computed values for the slider thumb border.
The thumb border in Firefox DevTools.

Visually however, I can’t spot this thick grey border anywhere.

Screenshot of the slider in its initial state in Firefox, before setting a background on it or on any of its components. I cannot see any border on the thumb, even Firefox DevTools says there is a pretty thick one.
How the slider looks initially in Firefox, before setting a background on it or on any of its components.

After setting a background on the actual range input or one of its components, the thumb border actually becomes visually detectable and it seems to be .1em.

Animated gif. Shows Firefox DevTools with the thumb selected. In DevTools we originally see a thickish grey border, with a different width on every side, but setting a background on either the slider or its components makes this border thinner an uniform around the thumb. Its width varies with the font-size and it seems to be .1em.
The thumb border in Firefox.

In Chrome and in Edge, the border-radius is always 0.

Screenshots. Top: screenshot of Chrome DevTools showing the computed value for the thumb's border-radius is 0. Bottom: screenshot of Edge DevTools showing the computed value for the thumb's border-radius is 0.
The thumb border-radius in Chrome (top) and Edge (bottom).

In Firefox however, we have a .5em value for this property, both before and after setting a background on the range input or on its components, even though the initial shape of the thumb doesn’t look like a rectangle with rounded corners.

Animated gif. Shows Firefox DevTools with the thumb selected. In DevTools, we change the font-size on the thumb and, from the way the computed border-radius value changes, we get that it's set to .5em.
The thumb border-radius in Firefox.

The strange initial shape of the thumb in Firefox has made me wonder whether it doesn’t have a clip-path set, but that’s not the case according to DevTools.

Screenshot. Shows Firefox DevTools with the thumb selected. The computed value for the clip-path property on the thumb is none.
The thumb clip-path in Firefox.

More likely, the thumb shape is due to the -moz-field setting, though, at least on Windows 10, this doesn’t make it look like every other slider.

Screenshots. The initial appearance of the slider in Firefox vs. the appearance of a native Windows slider.
Initial appearance of slider in Firefox vs. appearance of a native Windows 10 slider.

The thumb’s background-color is reported as being rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) (transparent) by Chrome DevTools, even though it looks grey before setting -webkit-appearance: none. We also don’t seem to have a background-image that could explain the gradient or the lines on the thumb before setting -webkit-appearance: none. Firefox DevTools reports it as being rgb(240, 240, 240), even though it looks blue as long as we don’t have a background explicitly set on the actual range input or on any of its components.

Screenshots. Top: screenshot of Chrome DevTools showing the computed value for background-color on the thumb is rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) and the computed value for background-image is none. Bottom: screenshot of Firefox DevTools showing the computed value for background-color on the thumb is rgb(240, 240, 240).
The thumb background-color in Chrome (top) and Firefox (bottom).

In Edge, the background-color is rgb(33, 33, 33) before setting -webkit-appearance: none and transparent after.

Animated gif. Shows Edge DevTools with the thumb selected. The computed value for the thumb's background-color is rgb(33, 33, 33). In DevTools, we set -webkit-appearance: none on the actual slider and on the thumb. The computed value for the thumb's background-color becomes transparent.
The thumb background-color in Edge.

The range progress (fill) component

We only have dedicated pseudo-elements for this in Firefox (::-moz-range-progress) and in Edge (::-ms-fill-lower). Note that this element is a sibling of the track in Firefox and a descendant in Edge. This means that it’s sized relative to the actual input in Firefox, but relative to the track in Edge.

In order to better understand this, consider that the track’s border-box perfectly fits horizontally within the slider’s content-box and that the track has both a border and a padding.

In Firefox, the left limit of the border-box of the progress component always coincides with the left limit of the slider’s content-box. When the current slider value is its minimum value, the right limit of the border-box of our progress also coincides with the left limit of the slider’s content-box. When the current slider value is its maximum value, the right limit of the border-box of our progress coincides with the right limit of the slider’s content-box.

This means the width of the border-box of our progress goes from 0 to the width of the slider’s content-box. In general, when the thumb is at x% of the distance between the two limit value, the width of the border-box for our progress is x% of that of the slider’s content-box.

This is shown in the recording below. The padding area is always transparent, while the border area and content-box are semitransparent (orange for the actual input, red for the track, grey for the progress and purple for the thumb).

Animated gif. Shows the slider in Firefox with the thumb at the minimum value. The width of the border-box of the progress component is 0 in this case. We drag the thumb to the maximum slider value. The width of the border-box of the progress component equals that of the slider's content-box in this case.
How the width of the ::-moz-range-progress component changes in Firefox.

In Edge however, the left limit of the fill’s border-box always coincides with the left limit of the track’s content-box while the right limit of the fill’s border-box always coincides with the vertical line that splits the thumb’s border-box into two equal halves. This means that when the current slider value is its minimum value, the right limit of the fill’s border-box is half the thumb’s border-box to the right of the left limit of the track’s content-box. And when the current slider value is its maximum value, the right limit of the fill’s border-box is half the thumb’s border-box to the left of the right limit of the track’s content-box.

This means the width of the border-box of our progress goes from half the width of the thumb’s border-box minus the track’s left border and padding to the width of the track’s content-box plus the track’s right padding and border minus half the width of the thumb’s border-box. In general, when the thumb is at x% of the distance between the two limit value, the width of the border-box for our progress is its minimum width plus x% of the difference between its maximum and its minimum width.

This is all illustrated by the following recording of this live demo you can play with:

Animated gif. Shows the slider in Edge with the thumb at the minimum value. The width of the border-box of the progress component is half the width of the thumb's border-box minus the track's left border and padding in this case. We drag the thumb to the maximum slider value. The width of the border-box of the progress component equals that of the track's content-box plus the track's right padding and border minus half the width of the thumb's border-box.
How the width of the ::-ms-fill-lower component changes in Edge.

While the description of the Edge approach above might make it seem more complicated, I’ve come to the conclusion that this is the best way to vary the width of this component as the Firefox approach may cause some issues.

For example, consider the case when we have no border or padding on the track for cross browser consistency and the height of the both the fill’s and thumb’s border-box equal to that of the track. Furthermore, the thumb is a disc (border-radius: 50%).

In Edge, all is fine:

Animated gif illustrating how the case described above works in Edge using a slider with a grey track and orange progress.
How our example works in Edge.

But in Firefox, things look awkward (live demo):

Animated gif illustrating how the case described above works in Firefox using a slider with a grey track and orange progress.
How our example works in Firefox.

The good news is that we don’t have other annoying and hard to get around inconsistencies in the case of this component.

box-sizing has the same computed value in both browsers – content-box.

Screenshot. Top half shows Firefox DevTools with the progress component selected. The computed value for box-sizing is shown to be content-box. Bottom half shows Edge DevTools with the lower fill component selected. The computed value for box-sizing is shown to be content-box in this case too.
The computed value for box-sizing in the case of the progress (fill) component: Firefox (top) and Edge (bottom).

In Firefox, the height of the progress is .2em, while the padding, border and margin are all 0.

Animated gif. Shows Firefox DevTools with the progress component selected. Changing the font-size on this component also changes its height, allowing us to see it was set as .2em.
The height of the progress in Firefox.

In Edge, the fill’s height is equal to that of the track’s content-box, with the padding, border and margin all being 0, just like in Firefox.

Animated gif. Shows Edge DevTools with the fill component selected. The height of the fill is the same as that of the track's content-box. We set box-sizing: border-box on the track and give it a vertical padding to check this. The height of the fill shrinks accordingly.
The height of the fill in Edge.

Initially, the background of this element is rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) (transparent, which is why we don’t see it at first) in Firefox and rgb(0, 120, 115) in Edge.

Screenshot. Top half shows Firefox DevTools with the progress selected. The computed value for the background-color of the progress is rgba(0, 0, 0, 0). Bottom half shows Edge DevTools with the lower fill selected. The computed value for the fill's background-color is rgb(0, 120, 115).
The background-color of the progress (fill) in Firefox (top) and Edge (bottom).

In both cases, the computed value of the color property is rgb(0, 0, 0) (solid black).

Screenshot. Top half shows Firefox DevTools with the progress component selected. The computed value for color is shown to be rgb(0, 0, 0). Bottom half shows Edge DevTools with the lower fill component selected. The computed value for color is shown to be rgb(0, 0, 0) in this case too.
The computed value for color in the case of the progress (fill) component: Firefox (top) and Edge (bottom).

WebKit browsers don’t provide such a component and, since we don’t have a way of accessing and using a track’s ::before or ::after pseudos anymore, our only option of emulating this remains layering an extra, non-repeating background on top of the track’s existing one for these browsers and making the size of this extra layer along the x axis depend depend on the current value of the range input.

The simplest way of doing this nowadays is by using a current value --val CSS variable, which holds the slider’s current value. We update this variable every time the slider’s value changes and we make the background-size of this top layer a calc() value depending on --val. This way, we don’t have to recompute anything when the value of the range input changes – our calc() value is dynamic, so updating the --val variable is enough (not just for this background-size, but also for other styles that may depend on it as well).

See the Pen by thebabydino (@thebabydino) on CodePen.

Also doing this for Firefox is an option if the way ::-moz-range-progress increases doesn’t look good for our particular use case.

Edge also provides a ::-ms-fill-upper which is basically the complementary of the lower one and it’s the silver background of this pseudo-element that we initially see to the right of the thumb, not that of the track (the track is transparent).

Tick marks and labels

Edge is the only browser that shows tick marks by default. They’re shown on the track, delimiting two, five, ten, twenty sections, the exact number depending initially on the track width. The only style we can change for these tick marks is the color property as this is inherited from the track (so setting color: transparent on the track removes the initial tick marks in Edge).

Screenshot. Shows Edge DevTools with the SVG group containing the tick lines selected. Unfortunately, I cannot access this group, its children, its SVG parent or the SVG container to modify their styles. I can only access the track (which is the SVG container's parent) via ::-ms-track. Since the color property is inherited and the tick lines use currentColor as the stroke value, changing the color on the track also changes the stroke of the tick lines.
The structure that generates the initial tick marks on the track in Edge.

The spec says that tick marks and labels can be added by linking a datalist element, for whose option children we may specify a label attribute if we want that particular tick mark to also have a label.

Unfortunately, though not at all surprising anymore at this point, browsers have a mind of their own here too. Firefox doesn’t show anything – no tick marks, no labels. Chrome shows the tick marks, but only allows us to control their position along the slider with the option values. It doesn’t allow us to style them in any way and it doesn’t show any labels.

Screenshot. Shows the range input with the tick marks generated in Chrome when adding a datalist.
Tick marks in Chrome.

Also, setting -webkit-appearance: none on the actual slider (which is something that we need to to in order to be able to style it) makes these tick marks disappear.

Edge joins the club and doesn’t show any labels either and it doesn’t allow much control over the look of the ticks either. While adding the datalist allows us to control which tick marks are shown where on the track, we cannot style them beyond changing the color property on the track component.

Screenshot. Shows the range input with the tick marks generated in Edge when adding a datalist.
Tick marks in Edge.

In Edge, we also have ::-ms-ticks-before and ::-ms-ticks-after pseudo-elements. These are pretty much what they sound like – tick marks before and after the track. However, I’m having a hard time understanding how they really work.

They’re hidden by display: none, so changing this property to block makes them visible if we also explicitly set a slider height, even though doing this does not change their own height.

Animated gif. Illustrates the steps above to make the tick marks created by ::-ms-ticks-after visible.
How to make tick marks crested by ::-ms-ticks-after visible in Edge.

Beyond that, we can set properties like margin, padding, height, background, color in order to control their look. However, I have no idea how to control the thickness of individual ticks, how to give individual ticks gradient backgrounds or how to make some of them major and some minor.

So, at the end of the day, our best option if we want a nice cross-browser result remains using repeating-linear-gradient for the ticks and the label element for the values corresponding to these ticks.

See the Pen by thebabydino (@thebabydino) on CodePen.

Tooltip/ current value display

Edge is the only browser that provides a tooltip via ::-ms-tooltip, but this doesn’t show up in the DOM, cannot really be styled (we can only choose to hide it by setting display: none on it) and can only display integer values, so it’s completely useless for a range input between let’s say .1 and .4 – all the values it displays are 0!

Animated gif. Dragging the thumb in Edge results in the tooltip displaying always 0 if both the minimum and the maximum are subunitary.
::-ms-tooltip when range limits are both subunitary.

So our best bet is to just hide this and use the output element for all browsers, again taking advantage of the possibility of storing the current slider value into a --val variable and then using a calc() value depending on this variable for the position.

See the Pen by thebabydino (@thebabydino) on CodePen.

Orientation

The good news is that every browser allows us to create vertical sliders. The bad news is, as you may have guessed… every browser provides a different way of doing this, none of which is the one presented in the spec (setting a width smaller than the height on the range input). WebKit browsers have opted for -webkit-appearance: slider-vertical, Edge for writing-mode: bt-lr, while Firefox controls this via an orient attribute with a value of 'vertical'.

The really bad news is that, for WebKit browsers, making a slider vertical this way leaves us unable to set any custom styles on it (as setting custom styles requires a value of none for -webkit-appearance).

Our best option is to just style our range input as a horizontal one and then rotate it with a CSS transform.

See the Pen by thebabydino (@thebabydino) on CodePen.


A Sliding Nightmare: Understanding the Range Input is a post from CSS-Tricks

::part and ::theme, an ::explainer

Monica Dinculescu on ::part and ::theme, two pseudo-elements that are very likely to gain traction and receive more attention in the new year. They’re designed to help us create and style web components, as Monica explains:

The current new proposal is ::part and ::theme, a set of pseudo-elements that allow you to style inside a shadow tree, from outside of that shadow tree. Unlike :shadow and /deep/, they don’t allow you to style arbitrary elements inside a shadow tree: they only allow you to style elements that an author has tagged as being eligible for styling. They’ve already gone through the CSS working group and were blessed, and were brought up at TPAC at a Web Components session, so we’re confident they’re both the right approach and highly likely to be implemented as a spec by all browsers.

If the whole “shadow tree” phrase makes you panic as much as me then not to worry! Monica has already written an excellent piece that goes into great depth about web components and the Shadow DOM spec, too.

Direct Link to Article — Permalink


::part and ::theme, an ::explainer is a post from CSS-Tricks

Fragmented HTML5 Video

I have seen various implementations of the Voronoi Diagram. Perhaps you’ve seen one without knowing what it was. It almost looks like random stained glass:

Wikipedia:

In mathematics, a Voronoi diagram is a partitioning of a plane into regions based on distance to points in a specific subset of the plane.

It’s even possible to create a Voronoi diagram by hand, as eLVirus88 has documented.

I wanted to give it a try.

The Idea

My idea is to chop up a video into fragmented parts (called cells) and put them into 3D space on a slightly different z-axis. Then, by moving the mouse, you would rotate the whole experience so you would see the cells in different depths.

The Code

Building on top of Raymond Hill’s and Larix Kortbeek’s JavaScript implementation, the first thing I needed to was split up the cells.

I choose to use the <canvas> element, and put each of the cells on different canvas on a differnet 3D plane through CSS.

The Voronoi library takes care of computing all the sites to cells and creating objects with the vertices and edges for us to work with.

Cells to Canvases

First we create the canvases to match the number of Voronoi cells. These will be rendered to the DOM. The canvases and their respective contexts will be saved to an array.

var canv = document.createElement('canvas'); canv.id = 'mirror-'+i;
canv.width = canvasWidth;
canv.height = canvasHeight; // Append to DOM
document.body.appendChild(canv);
document.getElementById('container-mirrors').appendChild(canv); // Push to array
canvasArray.push(canv);
contextArray.push(canv.getContext('2d'));

Masking

All of the canvases are now a copy of the video.

The desired effect is to show one cell per canvas. The Voronoi library provides us with a compute function. When providing the sites with the bounds we get a detailed object where we extract all of the cells edges. These will be used to create a cut out to each section using the globalCompositeOperation.

// Compute
diagram = voronoi.compute(sites, bounds); // Find cell
for (i=0;i<sites.length;i++) { if (!found) { cell = diagram.cells[i];
if (sites[j].voronoiId === cell.site.voronoiId) { found = 1; } }
} // Create mask to only show the current cell
ctx.globalCompositeOperation = 'destination-in';
ctx.globalAlpha = 1; ctx.beginPath(); var halfedges = cell.halfedges,
nHalfedges = halfedges.length,
v = halfedges[0].getStartpoint(); ctx.moveTo(v.x,v.y); for (var iHalfedge=0; iHalfedge<nHalfedges; iHalfedge++) { v = halfedges[iHalfedge].getEndpoint(); ctx.lineTo(v.x,v.y);
} ctx.fillStyle = sites[j].c;
ctx.fill();

Adding Video

Displaying video to the canvas only takes a couple of lines of code. This will be executed on requestAnimationFrame:

v = document.getElementById('video');
ctx.drawImage(v,0,0,960,540);

It’s also possible to use a video input source (like a webcam), but I didn’t like the result as much for this demo. If you would like to know how to use the webcam to draw to canvas using the getUserMedia() method you can read about it here.

To optimise video drawing performance skip a few frames in between the requestAnimationFrame. Videos for the web are usually encoded with a frame rate not higher than 30 fps.

See the Pen Fragmented HTML5 Video – Demo 1 by virgilspruit (@Virgilspruit) on CodePen.

Conclusion

Demos like this are my favorite things to do. Seeing what’s out there and adding your own layer of interactivity to it. I’m looking forward to seeing what other people will be doing with this nice visual algorithm.

See the Pen Fragmented HTML5 Video – Demo 2 by virgilspruit (@Virgilspruit) on CodePen.

See the Pen Fragmented HTML5 Video – Demo 3 by virgilspruit (@Virgilspruit) on CodePen.

View Demos GitHub Repo


Fragmented HTML5 Video is a post from CSS-Tricks

Further working mode changes at WHATWG

The Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) announced that it has adopted a formal governance structure:

The WHATWG has operated successfully since 2004 with no formal governance structure, guided by a strong culture of pragmatism and collaboration. Although this has worked well for driving the web forward, we realized that we could get broader participation by being clear about what rights and responsibilities members of the community have. Concretely, this involves creating an IPR Policy and governance structure.

WHATWG was founded by folks at Apple, Mozilla and Opera. The new structure will be comprised of individuals from Apple, Google, Microsoft and Mozilla. The Big Four, you might say.

I find this interesting because we often think of the Web as a wild west where standards are always evolving and adopted at a different pace. This change largely keeps public contributions to the Living Standards in tact, but establishes a clearer line of communication between working groups and provides a path to appeal and resolve disputes over standards.

Living Standards are informed by input from contributors, driven by workstream participants, articulated by editors, and coordinated by the Steering Group. If necessary, controversies are resolved by the Steering Group with members appointed from the organizations that develop browser engines.

And, with representatives from leading browsers at the table, we may see more agreement with adoption. I’m speculating here, but it seems reasonable.

If you’re like me and are fuzzy on the differences between WHATWG and W3C, Bruce Lawson has a pretty simple explanation. It still kinda blows my mind that they’re both standards we often refer to but come from two completely different groups.

Direct Link to Article — Permalink


Further working mode changes at WHATWG is a post from CSS-Tricks

Refactoring Your Way to a Design System

Mina Markham on refactoring a large and complex codebase into an agile design system, slowly over time:

If you’re not lucky enough to be able to start a new design system from scratch, you can start small and work on a single feature or component. With each new project comes a new opportunity to flesh out a new part of the system, and another potential case study to secure buy-in and showcase its value. Make sure to carefully and thoroughly document each new portion of the system as it’s built. After a few projects, you’ll find yourself with a decent start to a design system.

As a side note, Mina’s point here also reminds me of an old blog post called “Things You Should Never Do” by Joel Spolsky where he talks about how all this work and all this code you feel you needs to be refactored is actually solving a problem. Deleting everything and starting from scratch is almost never a good idea:

When you throw away code and start from scratch, you are throwing away all that knowledge. All those collected bug fixes. Years of programming work.

I’m not entirely sure that Joel’s piece about programming fits snuggly with Mina’s point but I think it’s an interesting one to make nonetheless: new code doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s better.

Direct Link to Article — Permalink


Refactoring Your Way to a Design System is a post from CSS-Tricks