This guy has communication sorted!!! The fundamentals are so important and He made understanding these seem effortless. I have been using CSS for years and yet this video had so many lightbulb moments for me. Mega props to Josh!
now that i've progressed beyond the basic CSS stuff, this was super helpful to demystify some of the things I use but get sometimes unpredictable results. great talk!
Thanks for this Josh. I've been building sites and web apps for over 20 years, and have developed an intuitive understanding of CSS and the browser algorithms which interpret and render the code we write, which you describe at the beginning of this talk. It was really great to hear and see your insights into what's actually happening 'under the hood'. Even after all this time I still learned a few bits and pieces, especially around Flexbox. Your visualisation of justify-content and align-items and how they work on the browser's model of axises was especially helpful. Also, those insights into position and stacking contexts helped clarify what I'd already assumed and intuitively understood. So, thanks again, great video.
shorthand properties such as flex cause consistent, proven, unnecessary confusion for most developers, as even Josh Comeau faced that problem. It has literally more downsides than good sides and should be considered malpractice. CSS is the only language encouraging obscure naming patterns for the sake of brevity.
I thought width is outward(children to parent) and height is inward(parent to children) according to josh, but when html, body 100% is given an example, he iterate it as children to parent? that confused me
Great talk! It's nice to see someone like myself, who could ramble about CSS all day given the chance. My only nit-picks would be a) That there are loads more properties that can create new stacking contexts. It would be hard to remember every single one of them, but it's good to be aware that there are more. And b) it sounded like you might have a little confusion over "0" - as in, 0px vs 0% doesn't matter, the unit is even "optional" and is likely to be minified away. The way I like to think of it is "0 apples is the exact same as 0 oranges". Of course you might want to specify units to (potentially) make code clearer, e.g. if you were going to transition to 50%, you might want to write the initial value as 0% for consistency. Perhaps something to add to the next talk of the same theme in the unlikely event its new to you ;D
This guy has communication sorted!!! The fundamentals are so important and He made understanding these seem effortless.
I have been using CSS for years and yet this video had so many lightbulb moments for me.
Mega props to Josh!
now that i've progressed beyond the basic CSS stuff, this was super helpful to demystify some of the things I use but get sometimes unpredictable results. great talk!
Thanks for this Josh. I've been building sites and web apps for over 20 years, and have developed an intuitive understanding of CSS and the browser algorithms which interpret and render the code we write, which you describe at the beginning of this talk. It was really great to hear and see your insights into what's actually happening 'under the hood'. Even after all this time I still learned a few bits and pieces, especially around Flexbox. Your visualisation of justify-content and align-items and how they work on the browser's model of axises was especially helpful. Also, those insights into position and stacking contexts helped clarify what I'd already assumed and intuitively understood.
So, thanks again, great video.
Josh is a joy to listen to and learn from.
Thanks for the fantastic presentation. I've learned a ton!!!! Josh, great job...
This is a great refresher, even after doing css-for-js 😅
Very interesting and enjoyable talk, thanks for sharing!
shorthand properties such as flex cause consistent, proven, unnecessary confusion for most developers, as even Josh Comeau faced that problem. It has literally more downsides than good sides and should be considered malpractice. CSS is the only language encouraging obscure naming patterns for the sake of brevity.
Have you seen perl
Super cool talk
This is awesome! Thank you so much to share this tips with us for free! 😍😍
I thought width is outward(children to parent) and height is inward(parent to children) according to josh, but when html, body 100% is given an example, he iterate it as children to parent? that confused me
Very enlightening! 🤩
Confused but amazing digging. 😶
Josh is great 💯
Great talk! It's nice to see someone like myself, who could ramble about CSS all day given the chance.
My only nit-picks would be a) That there are loads more properties that can create new stacking contexts. It would be hard to remember every single one of them, but it's good to be aware that there are more. And b) it sounded like you might have a little confusion over "0" - as in, 0px vs 0% doesn't matter, the unit is even "optional" and is likely to be minified away. The way I like to think of it is "0 apples is the exact same as 0 oranges". Of course you might want to specify units to (potentially) make code clearer, e.g. if you were going to transition to 50%, you might want to write the initial value as 0% for consistency. Perhaps something to add to the next talk of the same theme in the unlikely event its new to you ;D
Great information 😉 josh.
Informative!
Nice