rowid,title,contents,year,author,author_slug,published,url,topic 191,CSS Animations,"Friend: You should learn how to write CSS! Me: … Friend: CSS; Cascading Style Sheets. If you’re serious about web design, that’s the next thing you should learn. Me: What’s wrong with tags? That was 8 years ago. Thanks to the hard work of Jeffrey, Andy, Andy, Cameron, Colly, Dan and many others, learning how to decently markup a website and write lightweight stylesheets was surprisingly easy. They made it so easy even a complete idiot (OH HAI) was able to quickly master it. And then… nothing. For a long time, it seemed like there wasn’t happening anything in the land of CSS, time stood still. Once you knew the basics, there wasn’t anything new to keep up with. It looked like a great band split, but people just kept re-releasing their music in various “Best Of!” or “Remastered!” albums. Fast forward a couple of years to late 2006. On the official WebKit blog Surfin’ Safari, there’s an article about something called CSS animations. Great new stuff to play with, but only supported by nightly builds (read: very, very beta) of WebKit. In the following months, they release other goodies, like CSS gradients, CSS reflections, CSS masks, and even more CSS animation sexiness. Whoa, looks like the band got back together, found their second youth, and went into overdrive! The problem was that if you wanted to listen to their new albums, you had to own some kind of new high-tech player no one on earth (besides some early adopters) owned. Back in the time machine. It is now late 2009, close to Christmas. Things have changed. Browsers supporting these new toys are widely available left and right. Even non-techies are using these advanced browsers to surf the web on a daily basis! Epic win? Almost, but at least this gives us enough reason to start learning how we could use all this new CSS voodoo. On Monday, Natalie Downe showed you a good tutorial on Going Nuts with CSS Transitions. Today, I’m taking it one step further… Howto: A basic spinner No matter how fast internet tubes or servers are, we’ll always need spinners to indicate something’s happening behind the scenes. Up until now, people would go to some site, pick one of the available templates, customize their foreground and background colors, and download a beautiful GIF image. There are some downsides to this though: It’s only _semi_-transparent: If you change your mind and pick a slightly different background color, you need to go back to the site, set all the parameters again, and replace your current image. There isn’t even a way to pick an image or gradient as background. Limited number of frames, probable to keep the file-size as small as possible (don’t forget this thing needs to be loaded before whatever process is finished in the background), and you don’t have that 24 frames per second smoothness. This is just too fucking easy. As a front-end code geek, there must be a “cooler” way to do this! What do we need to make a spinner with CSS animations? One image, and one element on our webpage we can hook on to. Yes, that’s it. I created a simple transparent PNG that looks it might be a spinner, and for the element on the page, I wrote this piece of genius HTML:

Please wait while we do what we do best.

Looks semantic enough to me! Here’s the basic HTML I’m using to position the element in the center of the screen, and make the text inside it disappear: #spinner { position: absolute; top: 50%; left: 50%; margin: -100px 0 0 -100px; height: 200px; width: 200px; text-indent: 250px; white-space: nowrap; overflow: hidden; } Cool, but now we don’t see anything. Let’s pull rabbit number one out of the hat: -webkit-mask-image (accompanied by the previously mentioned transparent PNG image): #spinner { ... -webkit-mask-image: url(../img/spinner.png); } By now you should be feeling like a magician already. Oh, wait, we still have a blank screen, looks like we left something in the hat (tip: not rabbit droppings): #spinner { ... -webkit-mask-image: url(../img/spinner.png); background-color: #000; } Nice! What we’ve done right here is telling the element to clip onto the PNG. It’s a lot like clipping layers in Photoshop. So, spinners, they move, right? Into the hat again, and look what we pull out this time: CSS animations! #spinner { ... -webkit-mask-image: url(../img/spinner.png); background-color: #000; -webkit-animation-name: spinnerRotate; -webkit-animation-duration: 2s; -webkit-animation-iteration-count: infinite; -webkit-animation-timing-function: linear; } Some explanation: -webkit-animation-name: Name of the animation we’ll be defining later. -webkit-animation-duration: The timespan of the animation. -webkit-animation-iteration-count: Repeat once, a defined number of times or infinitely? -webkit-animation-timing-function: Linear is the one you’ll be using mostly. Other options are ease-in, ease-out, ease-in-out… Let’s define spinnerRotate: @-webkit-keyframes spinnerRotate { from { -webkit-transform:rotate(0deg); } to { -webkit-transform:rotate(360deg); } } En Anglais: Rotate #spinner starting at 0 degrees, ending at 360 degrees, over a timespan of 2 seconds, at a constant speed, and keep repeating this animation forever. That’s it! See it in action on the demo page. Note: these examples only work when you’re using a WebKit-based browser like Safari, Mobile Safari or Google Chrome. I’m confident though that Mozilla and Opera will try their very best catching up with all this new CSS goodness soon. When looking at this example, you see the possibilities are endless. Another advantage is you can change the look of it entirely by only changing a couple of lines of CSS, instead of re-creating and re-downloading the image from some website smelling like web 2.0 gone bad. I made another demo that shows how great it is to be able to change background and foreground colors (even on the fly!). So there you have it, a smoothly animated, fully transparent and completely customizable spinner. Cool? I think so. (Ladies?) But you can do a lot more with CSS animations than just create pretty spinners. Since I was fooling around with it anyway, I decided to test how far you can push this, space is the final limit, right? Conclusion CSS has never been more exciting than it is right now. I’m even prepared to say CSS is “cool” again, both for the more experienced front-end developers as for the new designers discovering CSS every day now. But… Remember when Javascript became popular? Remember when Flash became popular? Every time we’re been given new toys, some people aren’t ashamed to use it in a way you can barely call constructive. I’m thinking of Geocities websites, loaded with glowing blocks of text, moving images, bad color usage… In the wise words of Stan Lee: With great power there must also come great responsibility! A sprinkle of CSS animations is better than a bucket load. Apply with care.",2009,Tim Van Damme,timvandamme,2009-12-15T00:00:00+00:00,https://24ways.org/2009/css-animations/,code 183,Designing For The Switch,"For a long time on the web, we’ve been typographically spoilt. Yes, you heard me correctly. Think about it: our computers come with web fonts already installed; fonts that have been designed specifically to work well online and at small size; and fonts that we can be sure other people have too. Yes, we’ve been spoilt. We don’t need to think about using Verdana, Arial, Georgia or Cambria. Yet, for a long time now, designers have felt we needed more. We want to choose whatever typeface we feel necessary for our designs. We did bad things along the way in pursuit of this goal such as images for text. Smart people dreamt up tools to help us such as sIFR, or Cufón. Only fairly recently, @font-face is supported in most browsers. The floodgates are opening. It really is the dawn of a new typographic era on the web. And we must tread carefully. The New Typesetters Many years ago, before the advent of desktop publishing, if you wanted words set in a particular typeface, you had to go to a Typesetter. A Typesetter, or Compositor, as they were sometimes called, was a person whose job it was to take the written word (in the form of a document or manuscript) and ‘set’ the type in the desired typeface. The designer would chose what typeface they wanted – and all the ligatures, underlines, italics and whatnot – and then scribble all over the manuscript so the typesetter could set the correct type. Then along came Desktop Publishing and every Tom, Dick and Harry could choose type on their computer and an entire link in the typographic chain was removed within just a few years. Well, that’s progress I guess. That was until six months ago when Typesetting was reborn on the web in the guise of a font service: Typekit. Typekit – and services like Typekit such as Typotheque, Kernest and the upcoming Fontdeck – are typesetting services for the web. You supply them with your content, in the form of a webpage, and they provide you with some JavaScript to render that webpage in the typeface you’ve specified simply by adding the font name in your CSS file. Thanks to services like these, font foundries are now talking to create licensing structures to allow us to embed fonts into our web pages legally – which has always been a sticking point in the past. So, finally, us designers can get what we want: whatever typeface we want on the web. Yes, but… there are hurdles. One of which is the subject of this article. The differences between Web Fonts and other fonts Web fonts are different to normal fonts. They differ in a whole bunch of ways, from loose letter spacing to larger x-heights. But perhaps the most notable practical difference is file size. Let’s take a look at one of Typekit’s latest additions from the FontFont library, Meta. Meta Roman weighs in at 42 KB. This is a fairly typical file size for a single weight of a good font. Now, let’s have a look at Verdana. Verdana is 186 KB. For one weight. The four weight family for Verdana weighs in at 686 KB. Four weights for half a megabyte!? Why so huge? Well, Verdana has a lot of information packed into its 186 KB. It has the largest hinting data table of any typeface (the information carried by a font that tells it how to align itself to the pixels on your screen). As it has been shipped with Microsoft products since 1996, it has had time to grow to support many, many languages. Along with its cousin, Georgia (283 KB), Verdana was a new breed of typeface. And it’s grown fat. If really serious web typography takes off – and by that I mean typefaces specifically designed for the screen – then we’re going to see more fonts increase in file size as the font files include more data. So, if you’re embedding a font weighing in at 100 KB, what happens? The Flash of Unstyled Text We all remember the Flash of Unstyled Content bug on Internet Explorer, right? That annoying bug that caused a momentary flash of unstyled HTML page. Well, the same thing can happen with embedding fonts using @font-face. An effect called The Flash of Unstyled Text (FOUT), first coined by Paul Irish. Personally, I prefer to call it the Flash of UnTypeset Text (still FOUT), as the text is styled, just not with what you want. If you embed a typeface in your CSS, then the browser will download that typeface. Typically, browsers differ in the way they handle this procedure. Firefox and Opera will render the text using the next font in your font stack until the first (embedded) font is loaded. It will then switch to the embedded font. Webkit takes the approach that you asked for that font so it will wait until it’s completely loaded before showing it you. In Opera and Firefox, you get a FOUT. In Webkit, you don’t. You wait. Hang on there. Didn’t I say that good web fonts weigh in considerably more than ‘normal’ fonts? And whilst the browser is downloading the font, the user gets what to look at? Some pictures, background colours and whatever else isn’t HTML? I believe Webkit’s handling of font embedding – as deliberate as it is – is damaging to the practice of font embedding. Why? Well, we can design to a switch in typeface (as jarring as that is for the user), but we can’t design to blank space. Let’s have a closer look at how we can design to FOUT. More considered font stacks We all know that font stacks in CSS are there for when a user doesn’t have a font; the browser will jump to the next one in the stack. Adding embedded fonts into the font stack means that because of FOUT (in gecko and Opera), the user can see a switch, and depending on their connection that switch could happen well into any reading that the user may be doing. The practicalities of this are that a user could be reading and be towards the end of a line when the paragraph they are reading changes shape. The word they were digesting suddenly changes to three lines down. It’s the online equivalent of someone turning the page for you when you least expect it. So, how can we think about our font stacks slightly differently so we can minimise the switch? Two years ago, Richard Rutter wrote on this very site about increasing our font stacks. By increasing the font stacks (by using his handy matrix) we can begin to experiment with different typefaces. However, when we embed a typeface, we must look very carefully at the typefaces in the font stack and the relationship between them. Because, previously, the user would not see a switch from one typeface to another, they’d just get either one or the other. Not both. With FOUT, the user sees two typefaces. By carefully looking at the characteristics of the typefaces you choose, you can minimise the typographic ‘distance’ between the type down the stack. In doing so, you minimise the jarring effect of the switch. Let’s take a look at an example of how to go about this. Micro Typography to build better font stacks Let’s say I want to use a recent edition to Typekit – Meta Serif Book – as my embedded font. My font stack would start like this: font-family: 'Meta Serif Bold'; Where do you go from here? Well, first, familiarise yourself with Richard’s Font Matrix so you get an idea of what fonts are available for different people. Then start by looking closely at the characters of the embedded font and then compare them to different fonts from the matrix. When I do this, I’m looking to match type characteristics such as x-height, contrast (the thickness and thinness of strokes), the stress (the angle of contrast) and the shape of the serifs (if the typeface has any). Using just these simple comparative metrics means you can get to a ‘best fit’ reasonably quickly. And remember, you’re not after an ideal match. You’re after a match that means the switch is less painful for the reader, but also a typeface that carries similar characteristics so your design doesn’t change too much. Building upon my choice of embedded font, I can quickly build up a stack by comparing letters. This then creates my ‘best fit’ stack. This translates to the CSS as: font-family: 'Meta Serif Bold', 'Lucida Bright', Cambria, Georgia, serif Following this process, and ending up with considered font stacks, means that we can design to the Flash of UnTypeset Content and ensure that our readers don’t get a diminished experience.",2009,Mark Boulton,markboulton,2009-12-16T00:00:00+00:00,https://24ways.org/2009/designing-for-the-switch/,design 188,Don't Lose Your :focus,"For many web designers, accessibility conjures up images of blind users with screenreaders, and the difficulties in making sites accessible to this particular audience. Of course, accessibility covers a wide range of situations that go beyond the extreme example of screenreader users. And while it’s true that making a complex site accessible can often be a daunting prospect, there are also many small things that don’t take anything more than a bit of judicious planning, are very easy to test (without having to buy expensive assistive technology), and can make all the difference to certain user groups. In this short article we’ll focus on keyboard accessibility and how careless use of CSS can potentially make your sites completely unusable. Keyboard Access Users who for whatever reason can’t use a mouse will employ a keyboard (or keyboard-like custom interface) to navigate around web pages. By default, they will use TAB and SHIFT + TAB to move from one focusable element (links, form controls and area) of a page to the next. Note: in OS X, you’ll first need to turn on full keyboard access under System Preferences > Keyboard and Mouse > Keyboard Shortcuts. Safari under Windows needs to have the option Press Tab to highlight each item on a webpage in Preferences > Advanced enabled. Opera is the odd one out, as it has a variety of keyboard navigation options – the most relevant here being spatial navigation via Shift+Down, Shift+Up, Shift+Left, and Shift+Right). But I Don’t Like Your Dotted Lines… To show users where they are within a page, browsers place an outline around the element that currently has focus. The “problem” with these default outlines is that some browsers (Internet Explorer and Firefox) also display them when a user clicks on a focusable element with the mouse. Particularly on sites that make extensive use of image replacement on links with “off left” techniques this can create very unsightly outlines that stretch from the replaced element all the way to the left edge of the browser. Outline bleeding off to the left (image-replacement example from carsonified.com) There is a trivial workaround to prevent outlines from “spilling over” by adding a simple overflow:hidden, which keeps the outline in check around the clickable portion of the image-replaced element itself. Outline tamed with overflow:hidden But for many designers, even this is not enough. As a final solution, many actively suppress outlines altogether in their stylesheets. Controversially, even Eric Meyer’s popular reset.css – an otherwise excellent set of styles that levels the playing field of varying browser defaults – suppresses outlines. html, body, div, span, applet, object, iframe ... { ... outline: 0; ... } /* remember to define focus styles! */ :focus { outline: 0; } Yes, in his explanation (and in the CSS itself) Eric does remind designers to define relevant styles for :focus… but judging by the number of sites that seem to ignore this (and often remove the related comment from the stylesheet altogether), the message doesn’t seem to have sunk in. Anyway… hurrah! No more unsightly dotted lines on our lovely design. But what about keyboard users? Although technically they can still TAB from one element to the next, they now get no default cue as to where they are within the page (one notable exception here is Opera, where the outline is displayed regardless of stylesheets)… and if they’re Safari users, they won’t even get an indication of a link’s target in the status bar, like they would if they hovered over it with the mouse. Only Suppress outline For Mouse Users Is there a way to allow users navigating with the keyboard to retain the standard outline behaviour they’ve come to expect from their browser, while also ensuring that it doesn’t show display for mouse users? Testing some convoluted style combinations After playing with various approaches (see Better CSS outline suppression for more details), the most elegant solution also seemed to be the simplest: don’t remove the outline on :focus, do it on :active instead – after all, :active is the dynamic pseudo-class that deals explicitly with the styles that should be applied when a focusable element is clicked or otherwise activated. a:active { outline: none; } The only minor issues with this method: if a user activates a link and then uses the browser’s back button, the outline becomes visible. Oh, and old versions of Internet Explorer notoriously get confused by the exact meaning of :focus, :hover and :active, so this method fails in IE6 and below. Personally, I can live with both of these. Note: at the last minute before submitting this article, I discovered a fatal flaw in my test. It appears that outline still manages to appear in the time between activating a link and the link target loading (which in hindsight is logical – after activation, the link does indeed receive focus). As my test page only used in-page links, this issue never came up before. The slightly less elegant solution is to also suppress the outline on :hover. a:hover, a:active { outline: none; } In Conclusion Of course, many web designers may argue that they know what’s best, even for their keyboard-using audience. Maybe they’ve removed the default outline and are instead providing some carefully designed :focus styles. If they know for sure that these custom styles are indeed a reliable alternative for their users, more power to them… but, at the risk of sounding like Jakob “blue underlined links” Nielsen, I’d still argue that sometimes the default browser behaviours are best left alone. Complemented, yes (and if you’re already defining some fancy styles for :hover, by all means feel free to also make them display on :focus)… but not suppressed.",2009,Patrick Lauke,patricklauke,2009-12-09T00:00:00+00:00,https://24ways.org/2009/dont-lose-your-focus/,code 175,Front-End Code Reusability with CSS and JavaScript,"Most web standards-based developers are more than familiar with creating their sites with semantic HTML with lots and lots of CSS. With each new page in a design, the CSS tends to grow and grow and more elements and styles are added. But CSS can be used to better effect. The idea of object-oriented CSS isn’t new. Nicole Sullivan has written a presentation on the subject and outlines two main concepts: separate structure and visual design; and separate container and content. Jeff Croft talks about Applying OOP Concepts to CSS: I can make a class of .box that defines some basic layout structure, and another class of .rounded that provides rounded corners, and classes of .wide and .narrow that define some widths, and then easily create boxes of varying widths and styles by assigning multiple classes to an element, without having to duplicate code in my CSS. This concept helps reduce CSS file size, allows for great flexibility, rapid building of similar content areas and means greater consistency throughout the entire design. You can also take this concept one step further and apply it to site behaviour with JavaScript. Build a versatile slideshow I will show you how to build multiple slideshows using jQuery, allowing varying levels of functionality which you may find on one site design. The code will be flexible enough to allow you to add previous/next links, image pagination and the ability to change the animation type. More importantly, it will allow you to apply any combination of these features. Image galleries are simply a list of images, so the obvious choice of marking the content up is to use a