{"rowid": 191, "title": "CSS Animations", "contents": "Friend: You should learn how to write CSS!\nMe: \u2026\nFriend: CSS; Cascading Style Sheets. If you\u2019re serious about web design, that\u2019s the next thing you should learn.\nMe: What\u2019s wrong with tags?\n\nThat 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.\n\nAnd then\u2026 nothing. For a long time, it seemed like there wasn\u2019t happening anything in the land of CSS, time stood still. Once you knew the basics, there wasn\u2019t anything new to keep up with. It looked like a great band split, but people just kept re-releasing their music in various \u201cBest Of!\u201d or \u201cRemastered!\u201d albums.\n\nFast forward a couple of years to late 2006. On the official WebKit blog Surfin\u2019 Safari, there\u2019s 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.\n\nBack 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!\n\nEpic 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\u2019m taking it one step further\u2026\n\nHowto: A basic spinner\n\nNo matter how fast internet tubes or servers are, we\u2019ll always need spinners to indicate something\u2019s 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.\n\nThere are some downsides to this though:\n\n\n\tIt\u2019s 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\u2019t even a way to pick an image or gradient as background.\n\tLimited number of frames, probable to keep the file-size as small as possible (don\u2019t forget this thing needs to be loaded before whatever process is finished in the background), and you don\u2019t have that 24 frames per second smoothness.\n\tThis is just too fucking easy. As a front-end code geek, there must be a \u201ccooler\u201d way to do this!\n\n\nWhat 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\u2019s 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:\n\n

Please wait while we do what we do best.

\n\nLooks semantic enough to me! Here\u2019s the basic HTML I\u2019m using to position the element in the center of the screen, and make the text inside it disappear:\n\n#spinner {\n\tposition: absolute;\n\ttop: 50%;\n\tleft: 50%;\n\tmargin: -100px 0 0 -100px;\n\theight: 200px;\n\twidth: 200px;\n\ttext-indent: 250px;\n\twhite-space: nowrap;\n\toverflow: hidden;\n}\n\nCool, but now we don\u2019t see anything. Let\u2019s pull rabbit number one out of the hat: -webkit-mask-image (accompanied by the previously mentioned transparent PNG image):\n\n#spinner {\n\t...\n\t-webkit-mask-image: url(../img/spinner.png);\n}\n\nBy 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):\n\n#spinner {\n\t...\n\t-webkit-mask-image: url(../img/spinner.png);\n\tbackground-color: #000;\n}\n\nNice! What we\u2019ve done right here is telling the element to clip onto the PNG. It\u2019s 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!\n\n#spinner {\n\t...\n\t-webkit-mask-image: url(../img/spinner.png);\n\tbackground-color: #000;\n\t-webkit-animation-name: spinnerRotate;\n\t-webkit-animation-duration: 2s;\n\t-webkit-animation-iteration-count: infinite;\n\t-webkit-animation-timing-function: linear;\n}\n\nSome explanation:\n\n\n\t-webkit-animation-name: Name of the animation we\u2019ll be defining later.\n\t-webkit-animation-duration: The timespan of the animation.\n\t-webkit-animation-iteration-count: Repeat once, a defined number of times or infinitely?\n\t-webkit-animation-timing-function: Linear is the one you\u2019ll be using mostly. Other options are ease-in, ease-out, ease-in-out\u2026\n\n\nLet\u2019s define spinnerRotate:\n\n@-webkit-keyframes spinnerRotate {\n\tfrom {\n\t\t-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);\n\t}\n\tto {\n\t\t-webkit-transform:rotate(360deg);\n\t}\n}\n\nEn 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.\n\nThat\u2019s it! See it in action on the demo page.\n\nNote: these examples only work when you\u2019re using a WebKit-based browser like Safari, Mobile Safari or Google Chrome. I\u2019m confident though that Mozilla and Opera will try their very best catching up with all this new CSS goodness soon.\n\nWhen 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!).\n\nSo there you have it, a smoothly animated, fully transparent and completely customizable spinner. Cool? I think so. (Ladies?)\n\nBut 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?\n\nConclusion\n\nCSS has never been more exciting than it is right now. I\u2019m even prepared to say CSS is \u201ccool\u201d again, both for the more experienced front-end developers as for the new designers discovering CSS every day now.\n\nBut\u2026\n\nRemember when Javascript became popular? Remember when Flash became popular? Every time we\u2019re been given new toys, some people aren\u2019t ashamed to use it in a way you can barely call constructive. I\u2019m thinking of Geocities websites, loaded with glowing blocks of text, moving images, bad color usage\u2026 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.", "year": "2009", "author": "Tim Van Damme", "author_slug": "timvandamme", "published": "2009-12-15T00:00:00+00:00", "url": "https://24ways.org/2009/css-animations/", "topic": "code"} {"rowid": 183, "title": "Designing For The Switch", "contents": "For a long time on the web, we\u2019ve 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. \n\nYes, we\u2019ve been spoilt. We don\u2019t need to think about using Verdana, Arial, Georgia or Cambria. \n\nYet, 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 Cuf\u00f3n. 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. \n\nThe New Typesetters \n\nMany 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 \u2018set\u2019 the type in the desired typeface. The designer would chose what typeface they wanted \u2013 and all the ligatures, underlines, italics and whatnot \u2013 and then scribble all over the manuscript so the typesetter could set the correct type. \n\nThen 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\u2019s progress I guess. That was until six months ago when Typesetting was reborn on the web in the guise of a font service: Typekit. \n\nTypekit \u2013 and services like Typekit such as Typotheque, Kernest and the upcoming Fontdeck \u2013 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\u2019ve specified simply by adding the font name in your CSS file. \n\nThanks to services like these, font foundries are now talking to create licensing structures to allow us to embed fonts into our web pages legally \u2013 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. \n\nYes, but\u2026 there are hurdles. One of which is the subject of this article. \n\nThe differences between Web Fonts and other fonts \n\nWeb 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\u2019s take a look at one of Typekit\u2019s latest additions from the FontFont library, Meta. \n\nMeta Roman weighs in at 42 KB. This is a fairly typical file size for a single weight of a good font. Now, let\u2019s 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? \n\nWell, 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\u2019s grown fat. \n\nIf really serious web typography takes off \u2013 and by that I mean typefaces specifically designed for the screen \u2013 then we\u2019re going to see more fonts increase in file size as the font files include more data. So, if you\u2019re embedding a font weighing in at 100 KB, what happens? \n\nThe Flash of Unstyled Text \n\nWe 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. \n\nIf you embed a typeface in your CSS, then the browser will download that typeface. Typically, browsers differ in the way they handle this procedure. \n\nFirefox 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. \n\nWebkit takes the approach that you asked for that font so it will wait until it\u2019s completely loaded before showing it you. \n\nIn Opera and Firefox, you get a FOUT. In Webkit, you don\u2019t. You wait. \n\nHang on there. Didn\u2019t I say that good web fonts weigh in considerably more than \u2018normal\u2019 fonts? And whilst the browser is downloading the font, the user gets what to look at? Some pictures, background colours and whatever else isn\u2019t HTML? I believe Webkit\u2019s handling of font embedding \u2013 as deliberate as it is \u2013 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\u2019t design to blank space. \n\nLet\u2019s have a closer look at how we can design to FOUT. \n\nMore considered font stacks \n\nWe all know that font stacks in CSS are there for when a user doesn\u2019t 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. \n\nThe 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\u2019s 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? \n\nTwo 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\u2019d just get either one or the other. Not both. With FOUT, the user sees two typefaces. \n\nBy carefully looking at the characteristics of the typefaces you choose, you can minimise the typographic \u2018distance\u2019 between the type down the stack. In doing so, you minimise the jarring effect of the switch. \n\nLet\u2019s take a look at an example of how to go about this. \n\nMicro Typography to build better font stacks \n\nLet\u2019s say I want to use a recent edition to Typekit \u2013 Meta Serif Book \u2013 as my embedded font. My font stack would start like this: \n\nfont-family: 'Meta Serif Bold'; \n\nWhere do you go from here? Well, first, familiarise yourself with Richard\u2019s 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. \n\nWhen I do this, I\u2019m 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). \n\n\n\nUsing just these simple comparative metrics means you can get to a \u2018best fit\u2019 reasonably quickly. And remember, you\u2019re not after an ideal match. You\u2019re 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\u2019t change too much. \n\nBuilding upon my choice of embedded font, I can quickly build up a stack by comparing letters. \n\n\n\nThis then creates my \u2018best fit\u2019 stack. \n\n\n\nThis translates to the CSS as: \n\nfont-family: 'Meta Serif Bold', 'Lucida Bright', Cambria, Georgia, serif \n\nFollowing 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\u2019t get a diminished experience.", "year": "2009", "author": "Mark Boulton", "author_slug": "markboulton", "published": "2009-12-16T00:00:00+00:00", "url": "https://24ways.org/2009/designing-for-the-switch/", "topic": "design"} {"rowid": 188, "title": "Don't Lose Your :focus", "contents": "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\u2019s true that making a complex site accessible can often be a daunting prospect, there are also many small things that don\u2019t 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.\n\nIn this short article we\u2019ll focus on keyboard accessibility and how careless use of CSS can potentially make your sites completely unusable.\n\nKeyboard Access\n\nUsers who for whatever reason can\u2019t 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.\n\nNote: in OS X, you\u2019ll 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 \u2013 the most relevant here being spatial navigation via Shift+Down, Shift+Up, Shift+Left, and Shift+Right).\n\nBut I Don\u2019t Like Your Dotted Lines\u2026\n\nTo show users where they are within a page, browsers place an outline around the element that currently has focus. The \u201cproblem\u201d 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 \u201coff left\u201d techniques this can create very unsightly outlines that stretch from the replaced element all the way to the left edge of the browser.\n\n Outline bleeding off to the left (image-replacement example from carsonified.com)\n\nThere is a trivial workaround to prevent outlines from \u201cspilling over\u201d by adding a simple overflow:hidden, which keeps the outline in check around the clickable portion of the image-replaced element itself.\n\n Outline tamed with overflow:hidden\n\nBut for many designers, even this is not enough. As a final solution, many actively suppress outlines altogether in their stylesheets. Controversially, even Eric Meyer\u2019s popular reset.css \u2013 an otherwise excellent set of styles that levels the playing field of varying browser defaults \u2013 suppresses outlines.\n\nhtml, body, div, span, applet, object, iframe ... {\n\t...\n\toutline: 0;\n\t...\n}\n/* remember to define focus styles! */\n:focus {\n\toutline: 0;\n}\n\nYes, in his explanation (and in the CSS itself) Eric does remind designers to define relevant styles for :focus\u2026 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\u2019t seem to have sunk in.\n\nAnyway\u2026 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)\u2026 and if they\u2019re Safari users, they won\u2019t even get an indication of a link\u2019s target in the status bar, like they would if they hovered over it with the mouse.\n\nOnly Suppress outline For Mouse Users\n\nIs there a way to allow users navigating with the keyboard to retain the standard outline behaviour they\u2019ve come to expect from their browser, while also ensuring that it doesn\u2019t show display for mouse users?\n\n Testing some convoluted style combinations\n\nAfter playing with various approaches (see Better CSS outline suppression for more details), the most elegant solution also seemed to be the simplest: don\u2019t remove the outline on :focus, do it on :active instead \u2013 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.\n\na:active { outline: none; }\n\nThe only minor issues with this method: if a user activates a link and then uses the browser\u2019s 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.\n\nNote: 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 \u2013 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.\n\na:hover, a:active { outline: none; }\n\nIn Conclusion\n\nOf course, many web designers may argue that they know what\u2019s best, even for their keyboard-using audience. Maybe they\u2019ve 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\u2026 but, at the risk of sounding like Jakob \u201cblue underlined links\u201d Nielsen, I\u2019d still argue that sometimes the default browser behaviours are best left alone. Complemented, yes (and if you\u2019re already defining some fancy styles for :hover, by all means feel free to also make them display on :focus)\u2026 but not suppressed.", "year": "2009", "author": "Patrick Lauke", "author_slug": "patricklauke", "published": "2009-12-09T00:00:00+00:00", "url": "https://24ways.org/2009/dont-lose-your-focus/", "topic": "code"} {"rowid": 175, "title": "Front-End Code Reusability with CSS and JavaScript", "contents": "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.\n\nThe idea of object-oriented CSS isn\u2019t 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:\n\n\n\tI 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.\n\n\nThis 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.\n\nBuild a versatile slideshow\n\nI 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.\n\nImage galleries are simply a list of images, so the obvious choice of marking the content up is to use a