Tag: Style

On Type Patterns and Style Guides

Over the last six years or so, I’ve been using these things I’ve been calling “type patterns” in my web design work, and they’ve worked out pretty well for me. I’ll dig into what they are and how they can make their way into CSS, and maybe the idea will click with you too and help with your day-to-day typography needs.

If you’ve used print design desktop software like QuarkXPress, Adobe InDesign, or CorelDraw, then imagine this idea is an HTML/CSS translation of “paragraph styles.”

When designing a book (that spans hundreds of pages), you might want to change something about the heading typography across the whole book (on the fly). You would define how a certain piece of typography behaves in one central place to be applied across the entire project (a book, in our example). You need control of the patterns.

Most programs use this naming style, but their user interfaces vary a little.

When you pull up the pane, there’s usually a “base” paragraph style that all default text belongs to. From there, you can create as many as you want. Paragraph styles are for “block” level-like elements, and character styles are for “inline” level-like elements, such as bold or unique spans.

The user interface specifics shouldn’t matter — but you can see that there are a lot of controls to define how this text behaves visually. Under the hood, it’s just key: value pairs, which is just like CSS property: value pairs

h1 {   font-family: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;    font-size: 20px;   font-weight: bold;   color: fuchsia; }

Once defined, the styles can be applied to any piece of text. The little + (next to the paragraph style name below) in this case, means that the style definition has changed.

If you want to apply those changes to everything with that paragraph style, then you can “redefine” the style and it will apply project-wide.

When I say it like that, it might make you think: that’s what a CSS class is.

But things are a little more complicated for a website. You never know what size your website will be displayed at (it could be small, like on a mobile device, or giant, like on a desktop monitor, or even on monochrome tablet, who knows), so we need to be contextual with those classes and have then change based on their context.

Styles change as the context changes.

The bare minimum of typographic control

In your very earliest days as a developer, you may have been introduced to semantic HTML, like this:

<h1>Here's some HTML stuff. I'm a heading level 1</h1> <p>And some more. I'm a paragraph.</p>  <h2>This is a heading level 2</h2> <p>And some more pragraph stuff.</p>

And that pairs with CSS that targets those elements and applies styles, like this:

h1 {   font-size: 50px; /* key: value pairs */   color: #ff0066; }  h2 {   font-size: 32px;   color: rgba(0,0,0,.8); }  p {   font-size: 16px;   color: deepskyblue;   line-height: 1.5; }

This works!

You can write rules that target the headers and style them in descending order, so they are biggest > big > medium, and so on.

Headers also already have some styles that we accept as normal, thanks to User Agent styles (i.e. default styles applied to HTML by the browser itself). They are meant to be helpful. They add things like font-weight and margin to the headers, as well as collapsing margins. That way — without any CSS at all — we can rest assured we get at least some basic styling in place to establish a hierarchy. This is beginner-friendly, fallback-friendly… and a good thing!

As you build more complex sites, things get more complicated

You add more pages. More modules. More components. Things start to get more complex. You might start out by adding unique classes and styles for every single little thing, but it’ll catch up to you.

First, you start having classes for special situations:

<h1 class="page-title">   Be <span class='super-ultra-magic-rainbow'>excellent</span> to each other </h1>  <p class="special-mantra">Party on, <em>dudes</em>.</p>  <p>And yeah. I'm just a regular paragraph.</p>

Then, you start having classes everywhere (most CSS methodologies even encourage this):

<header class="site-header">   <h1 class="page-title">     Be <span class='ultra-magic-rainbow'>excellent</span> to each other   </h1> </header>  <main class="page-content">   <section class="welcome">     <h2 class="special-mantra">Party on <em>dudes</em></h2>      <p class="regular-paragraph">And yeah. I'm just regular</p>   </section> </main>

Newcomers will try and work around the default font sizes and collapsing margins if they don’t feel confident resetting them.

This is where people start trying out margin-top: -20px… and then stuff gets whacky. As you keep writing more rules to wrangle things in, it will feel like you are “fixing” things instead of declaring how you actually want them to work. It can quickly feel like you are “fighting” the CSS cascade when you’re unaware of the browser’s User Agent styles.

A real-world example

Imagine you’re at your real job and your boss (or the visual designer) gives you this “pixel perfect” Adobe Photoshop document. There are a bunch of colors, layout, and typography.

You open up Photoshop and start to poke around, but there are so many pages and so many different type styles that you’ll need to take inventory and gather what styles can be combined or used in combination.

Would you believe that there are 12 different sizes of type on this page? There’s possibly even more if you also take the line-height into consideration.

It feels great to finish a visual layout and hand it off. However, I can’t tell you how many full days I’ve spent trying to figure out what the heck is happening in a Photoshop document. For example, sometimes small-screens aren’t taken into consideration at all; and when they are, the patterns you find aren’t always shared by each group as they change for different screen types. Some fonts start at 16px and go up to 18px, while others go up to 19px and become italic. How can spot context changes in a static mockup?

Sometimes this is with fervent purpose; other times the visual designer is just going on feel and is happy to round things up and down to create reusable patterns. You’ll have to talk to them about it. But this article is advocating that we talk about it much earlier in the process.

You might get a style guide to reference. But even that might not be specific enough to identify contexts.

Let’s zoom in on one of those guidelines:

We get more content direction than we do behavior of the content in different contexts.

You may even get a formal, but generic, style guide with no pixel sizes or notes on varying screen sizes at all!

Don’t get me wrong: this sort of thing is defintely a nice thought, and it might even be useful for others, like in some client meeting or something. But, as far as front-end development goes, it’s more confusing than helpful. I’ve received very thorough style guides that looked nice and gave lots of excellent guidelines for things like font sizes, but are completely mismatched with the accompanying Photoshop document. On the other end of the spectrum, there are style guides that have unholy amounts of specifics for every type of heading and combination you could ever imagine — and more.

It’s hard to parse this stuff, even with the best of intentions!

Early in your development career, you’d probably assume it’s your job to “figure it out” and get to work, writing down all the pixels and trying your best to make sense of it. Go getem!

But, as you start coding all the specifics, things can get a little overwhelming with the amount of duplication going on. Just look at all the repeated properties going on here:

.blog article p {   font-family: 'Georgia', serif;   font-size: 17px;   line-height: 1.4;   letter-spacing: 0.02em;   margin-bottom: 10px; }  .welcome .main-message {   font-family: 'Georgia', serif;   font-size: 17px;   line-height: 1.4;   letter-spacing: 0.02em;   margin-bottom: 20px; }  @media (min-width; 700px) {   .welcome .main-message {     font-size: 18px;   } }  .welcome .other-thing {   font-family: 'Georgia', serif;   font-size: 17px;   line-height: 1.4;   letter-spacing: 0.02em;   margin-bottom: 20px; }  .site-footer .link list a {   font-family: 'Georgia', serif;   font-size: 17px;   line-height: 1.4;   letter-spacing: 0.02em;   margin-bottom: 20px; }

You might take the common declarations and apply them to the body instead. In smaller projects, that might even be a good way to go. There are ways to use the cascade to your advantage, and others that seem to tie too many things together. Just like in an Object Oriented programming language, you don’t necessarily want everything inheriting everything.

body {   font-family: 'Georgia', serif;   font-size: 17px;   line-height: 1.4;   letter-spacing: 0.02em; }

Things will work out OK. Most of the web was built like this. We’re just looking for something even better.

Dealing with design revisions

One day, there will be a meeting. In that meeting, you’ll find out that the client and the visual designer decided to change a bunch of the typography. Now you need to go back and change it in 293 places in the CSS file. If you get paid by the hour, that might be great!

As you begin to adjust the rules, things will start to conflict. That rule that worked for two things now only works for the one. Or you’ll notice patterns that could now be used in many more places than before. You may even be tempted to just totally delete the CSS and start over! Yikes!

I won’t write it out here, but you’ll try a bunch of different things over time, and people usually come to the conclusion that you can create a class — and add it to the element instead of duplicating rules/declarations for every element. You’ll go even further to try and pull patterns out of the visual designer’s documents. (You might even round a few 19px down to 18px without telling them…)

.standard-text { /* or something */   font-family: serif;   font-size: 16px; /* px: up for debate */   line-height: 1.4; /* no unit: so it's relative to the font-size */   letter-spacing: 0.02em; /* em: so it's relative to the font-size */ }  .heading-1 {   font-family: sans-Serif;   font-size: 30px;   line-height: 1.5;   letter-spacing: 0.03em; }  .medium-heading {   font-family: sans-Serif;   font-size: 24px;   line-height: 1.3;   letter-spacing: 0.04em; }

Then you’d apply the class to anything that needs it.

<header class="site-header">   <h1 class="page-title heading-1">     Be <mark>excellent</mark> to each other   </h1> </header>  <main class="page-content">   <section class="welcome">     <h2 class="medium-heading">Party on <em>dudes</em></h2>      <p class="standard-text">And yeah. I'm just regular</p>   </section> </main>

This way of doing things can be really helpful for teams that have people of all skill levels changing the HTML. You can plug and play with these CSS classes to get the style you want, even if you’re the new intern.

It’s really helpful to separate the idea of “layout” elements (structure/parents) and the idea of “modules” or “components.” In this way, we’re treating the pieces of text as lower level components.

The key is to keep the typography separate from the layout. You don’t want all .medium-heading elements to have the same margins or colors. It’s going to depend on where they are. This way you are styling based on context. You aren’t ‘using’ the cascade necessarily, but you also aren’t fighting it because you keep the techniques separate.

.site-header {   padding: 20px 0; }  .welcome .medium-heading { /* the context — not the type-pattern */   margin-bottom: 10px; }

This is keeping things reasonable and tidy. This technique is used all over the web.

Working with a CMS

Great, but what about situations where you can’t change the HTML?

You might just be typing up a quick CodePen or a business-card site. In that case, these concerns are going to seem like overkill. On the other hand, you might be working with a CMS where you aren’t sure what is going to happen. You might need to plan for anything and everything that could get thrown at you. In those cases, you’re unable to simply add classes to individual elements. You’re likely to get a dump of HTML from some templating language.

<?php echo getContent()?> <?=getContent()?> $ {data.content} {{model.cmsContent}}

So, if you can’t work with the HTML what can you do?

<article class="post cms-blog-dump">   <h1>Talking type-patterns on CSS-tricks</h1>   <p>Intoduction paragraph - and we'd like to style this with a slightly different size font then the next (normal) paragraphs</p>   <h2>Some headings</h2>   <h2>And maybe someone accidentally puts 2 headings in a row</h2>   <ol>     <li>and some <strong>list</strong></li>     <li>and here</li>   </ol>    <p>Or if a blog post is too boring - then think of a list of bands on an event site. You never know how many there will be or which ones are headlining, so you have to write rules that will handle whatever happens. </article>

You don’t have any control over this markup, so you won’t be able to add classes, meaning that the cool plug-and-play classes you made aren’t going to work! You might just copy and paste them into some larger .article { } class that defines the rules for a kitchen sink. That could work.

What other tools are there to play with?

Mixins

If you could create some reusable concept of a “type pattern” with Sass, then you could apply those in a similar way to how the classes work.

@mixin my-useful-rule { /* define the mixin */   background-color: blue;   color: lime; }  .thing {   @include my-useful-rule(); /* employ the mixin */ }  /* This compiles to: */ .thing {   background-color: blue;   color: lime; } /* (just so that we're on the same page) */

Less, Sass, Stylus and other CSS preprocessors all have their own syntax for this. I’m going to use Sass/SCSS in these examples because it is the most common at the time of writing.

@mixin standard-type() { /* define the mixin */   font-family: Serif;   font-size: 16px;   line-height: 1.4;   letter-spacing: 0.02em; }  .context .thing {   @include standard-type(); /* employ it in context */ }

You can use heading-1() and heading-2() and a lot of big-name style guides do this. But what if you want to use those type styles on something that isn’t a “heading”? I personally don’t end up connecting the headings with “size” and I use the patterns in all sorts of different places. Sometimes my headings are “mean” and “stout.” They can be piercing red and uppercase with the same x-height as the paragraph text.

Instead, I define the visual styles in association with how I want the “voice” of the content to come across. This also helps the team discuss “tone” and other content strategy stuff across disciplines.

For example, in Jason Santa Maria’s book, On Web Typography, he talks about “type for a moment” and “type to live with.” There’s type to grab your attention and break up the page, and then those paragraphs to settle into. Instead of .standard-text or .normal-font, I’ve been enjoying the idea of organizing styles by voice. This is all that type that a user should spend time consuming. It’s what I’d likely use for most paragraphs and lists, and I won’t set it on the body.

@mixin calm-voice() { /* define the mixin */   font-family: Serif;   font-size: 16px;   line-height: 1.4;   letter-spacing: 0.02em; }  @mixin loud-voice() {   font-family: Sans-Serif;   font-size: 30px;   line-height: 1.5;   letter-spacing: 0.03em; }  @mixin attention-voice() {   font-family: Sans-Serif;   font-size: 24px;   line-height: 1.3;   letter-spacing: 0.04em; }

This idea of “voices” helps me keep things meaningful because it requires you to name things by the context. The name heading-1b, for example, doesn’t help me connect to the content to any sort of storytelling or to the other people on the team.

Now to style the mystery article. I’ll be using SCSS syntax here:

article {   padding: 20px 0;   h1 {     @include loud-voice();     margin-bottom: 20px;   }   h2 {     @include attention-voice();     margin-bottom: 20px;   }   p {     @include calm-voice();     margin-bottom: 10px;   } }

Pretty, right?

But it’s not that easy, is it? No. It’s a little more complicated because you don’t know what might be above or below each other — or what might be left out, because articles aren’t always structured or organized the same. Those CMS authors can put whatever they want in there! Three <h3> elements in a row? You have to prepare for lots of possible outcomes.

/* Styles */ article {   padding: 20px 0;    h1 {     @include loud-voice();   }    h2 {     @include attention-voice();   }    p {     @include calm-voice();      &:first-of-type {       background: lightgreen;       padding: 1em;     }   }    ol {     @include styled-ordered-list();   }    * + * {     margin-top: 1em    } } 

To see the regular CSS you can always “View Compiled” in CodePen.

Some people are really happy with the lobotomized owl approach (* + *) but I usually end up writing explicit rules for “any <h2> that comes after a paragraph” and getting really detailed. After all, it’s the written content that everyone wants to read… and I really only need to dial it in one time in one place.

/* Slightly more filled out pattern */ @mixin calm-voice() {   font-family: serif;   font-size: 16px;   line-height: 1.4;   letter-spacing: 0.02em;   max-width: 80ch;    strong {     font-weight: 700;   }    em {     font-style: italic;   }    mark {     background-color: wheat;   }    sup {     /* maybe? */   }    a {     text-decoration: underline;     color: $ highlight;   }    @media (min-width: 600px) {     font-size: 17px;   } }

Stylus

It’s nice to think about the “ideal” workflow. What could browsers implement that would make this fun and play well with their future systems?

Here’s an example of the most stripped down preprocessor syntax:

calm-voice()   font-family: serif   font-size: 16px   line-height: 1.4   letter-spacing: 0.02em  article   h1     loud-voice()   h2     attention-voice()   p     calm-voice() 

I’ll be honest… I love Stylus. I love writing it, and I love using it for examples. It keeps people on their toes. It’s so fast to type in CodePen! If you already have your own little framework of styles like this, it’s insane how fast you can build UI. But! The tooling has fallen behind and at this point, I can’t recommend that anyone use it.

I only add it here because it’s important to dream. We have what we have, but what if you could invent a new way of writing it? That’s a crucial part of the conversation too. If you can’t describe what you want, you wont get it.

We’re here: Type Patterns

Can you see where all of this is going?

You can use these “patterns” or “mixins’ or “whatever” you want to call them and plug and play. It’s fun. And you can totally combine it with the utility class idea too (if you must).

.calm-voice {   @include calm-voice(); }
<p class="calm-voice">Welcome to this code snippet!</p>

Style guides

If you can start to share a common language and break down the barriers between “creatives” and “coders,” then everyone can work with these type patterns in mind from the start.

Sometimes you can simply publish a style guide as a “brand” subdomain or directly on the site, like at /style-guide. There are tons of these floating around on the web. The point is that some style guides are standalone, and others are built into the site itself. Wherever they go, they are considered “live” and they allow you to develop things in one place that take effect globally, and use the guide itself as a sort of artifact.

By building live style guides with type patterns as a core and shared concept, everyone will have more fun and save time trying to figure out what each other means. It’s not just for big companies either.

Just be mindful when looking at style guides for other organizations. Style guides serve different purposes depending on who is using them and how, so simply diving into someone else’s work could actually contribute more confusion.

Known unknowns

Sometimes you don’t know what the content will be. That means CMS stuff, but also logic. What if you have a list of bands and events and you are building a module full of conditional components? There might be one band… or five… or two co-headliners. The event might be cancelled!

When I was trying to work out some templating ideas for Ticketfly, I separated the concerns of layout and type patterns.

Variable sized font patterns

Some patterns change sizes at various breakpoints.

@mixin attention-voice() {   font-family: Serif;   font-size: 20px;   line-height: 1.4;   letter-spacing: 0.02em;   @media (min-width: 700px) {     font-size: 24px;   }   @media (min-width: 1100px) {     font-size: 30px;   } }

I used to do something like this and it had a few yucky side effects. For example, what if you plug and play based on the breakpoints and there are sizes that conflict or slip through?

clamp() and vmin units to the rescue!

@mixin attention-voice() {   font-family: Serif;   font-size: clamp(18px, 10vmin, 100px);   line-height: 1.4;   letter-spacing: 0.02em; }

Now, in theory, you could even jump between the patterns with no rub.

.context {   @include calm-voice();   @media (min-width: 840px) {     @include some-other-voice();   } }

But now you have to make sure that they both have the same properties and that they don’t conflict with or bleed through to others! And think about the new variable font options too. Sometimes you’ll want your heading to be a little less heavy on smaller screens or a little taller to work with the space.

Aren’t you duplicating style rules all over the place?

Yikes! You caught me. I care way more about making the authoring and maintaining process pleasurable than I care about CSS byte size. I’m conflicted though. I get it. But I also think that the solution should happen somewhere else in the pipeline. There’s a reason that we don’t write machine code by hand.

Sometimes you have to examine a programming pattern closely and really poke at it, trying it in every place you can to prove how useful it is. Humor me for a movement and look at how you’d use this type pattern and other mixins to style a common “card” interface.

In a way, type patterns are like the utility class style of Bootstrap or Tailwind. But these are human readable. The patterns are added in the CSS instead of the HTML. The concept is the same. I like to think that anyone could look at the living style guide and jump into a component and style it. What do you think?

It is creating more CSS though. Those kilobytes are stacking up. But I think we should work towards something ideal instead of just “possible.” We can probably build something that works this out at build time. I’ll have to learn more about the CSSOM and there are many new things coming down the pipeline that could make this possible without a preprocessor.

It’s bigger than just the CSS. It’s about the people.

Having a set of patterns for type in your project allows visual designers to focus on their magic. More and more, we are building fast and in the browser. Visual designers focus on feel and typography and color with simple frameworks, like Style Tiles. Then developers can organize the data, resource structures and layouts, and everyone can work at the same time. We can have clearer communication and shared understanding of the entire process. We are all UX designers.

When living style guides are created as a team, there’s a lot less need for pixel-pushing. Visual designers can actually spend more time thinking and trying ideas in prototypes, and less time mocking out unnecessary production art. This allows you to work on your brand as a whole and have one single source of truth. It even helps with really small sites, like this.

Gold Collective style guide

InDesign and Illustrator have always had “paragraph styles” and “character styles” for this reason, but they don’t take into account variable screen sizes.

Toss in a few padding type sizes/ratios, some colors and some line widths. It doesn’t have to really be “pixel perfect” but more of a collection of patterns that work together. Colors as variables and maybe some $ thick, $ thin, or $ pad*2 type conventions can help streamline design patterns.

You can find your inspiration in the graphics program, then jump straight to the live style guide. People of all backgrounds can start playing with the styles in a CodePen and dial them in across devices.

In the end, you’ll decide the details on real devices — together, as a team.


The post On Type Patterns and Style Guides appeared first on CSS-Tricks.

You can support CSS-Tricks by being an MVP Supporter.

CSS-Tricks

, , ,

Global and Component Style Settings with CSS Variables

The title of this Sara Soueidan article speaks to me. I’m a big fan of the idea that some CSS is best applied globally, and some CSS is best applied scoped to a component. I’m less interested in how that is done and more interested in just seeing that conceptual approach used in some fashion.

Sara details an approach where components don’t have too much styling by default, but have CSS custom properties applied to them that are ready to take values should you choose to set them.

For each pattern, I’ve found myself modifying the same properties whenever I needed to use it — like the font, colors (text, background, border), box shadow, spacing, etc. So I figured it would be useful and time-saving if I created variables for those properties, define those variables in the ‘root’ of the component, and ‘pass in’ the values for these variables when I use the pattern as I need. This way I can customize or theme the component by changing the property values in one rule set, instead of having to jump between multiple ones to do so.

Direct Link to ArticlePermalink

The post Global and Component Style Settings with CSS Variables appeared first on CSS-Tricks.

CSS-Tricks

, , , ,
[Top]

List Style Recipes

Lists are a fundamental part of HTML! They are useful in things like blog posts for listing out steps, recipes for listing ingredients, or items in a navigation menu. Not only are they an opportunity for styling, but they have accessibility implications. For example, the number of items in a list is announced in a screen reader to give some context to the list.

Let’s focus on styling lists here, mostly just ordered and unordered lists (with apologies for snubbing our friend the definition list), and somewhat unusual styling situations.

The Basics

Before you do anything too fancy, know that there is quite few settings for list-style-type that might cover your needs out of the gate.

The Break in the Middle

Ordered lists can start at any number you want them to.

The Nested Decimals

The Reversed Top 10 List

A single reversed attribute will do the trick.

Image Bullets

The best bet is using a background-image on a pseudo-element. You’d think list-style-image would be the way to go, but it’s extremely limited. For example, you can’t position it or even resize it.

Emoji Bullets

Hand-Picked “Random” Order

The value attribute will set a list item to use the marker relevant for that position.

Custom Text Counters

Can be done with pseudo-elements for the most control, but there is also list-style-type: '-';

Inside vs. Outside

Things line up nicer with list-style-position: outside; (the default value), but the list markers render outside the box, so you have to be careful not to cut them off. They could hang off the edge of the browser window, or overflow: hidden; will hide them completely. The last two examples here have a trick to mimic the nicer alignment while rendering inside the element.

Colored Bullets

Three ways here:

  1. ::marker (newest and easiest)
  2. Classic pseudo-element style
  3. background-image (this one is an SVG Data URL so you can manipulate the color from the CSS)

Columized List

The number of columns can be automatic.

Colored Circle Numbers

Custom Cycling List Symbols

One-offs can be done with list-style: symbols() and reusable sets can be made with @counter-style then used. Note this is only supported in Firefox at the time of writing.

The post List Style Recipes appeared first on CSS-Tricks.

CSS-Tricks

, ,
[Top]

Front-End Documentation, Style Guides and the Rise of MDX

You can have the best open source project in the world but, if it doesn’t have good documentation, chances are it’ll never take off. In the office, good documentation could save you having to repeatedly answer the same questions. Documentation ensures that people can figure out how things work if key employees decide to leave the company or change roles. Well documented coding guidelines help bring consistency to a codebase.

If you’re writing long-form text, Markdown is clearly a great alternative to authoring HTML. Sometimes though, Markdown syntax isn’t enough. It’s always been possible to write straight HTML inside of Markdown documents. This includes custom elements so, if you’re building a design system with native web components, it’s easy to incorporate them inside your text-based documentation. If you’re working with React (or any other framework that speaks JSX, like Preact or Vue), you can do the same thing by using MDX.

This article is a broad overview of the tools available for writing documentation and for building style guides. Not all the tools listed here make use of MDX but it’s increasingly being incorporated into documentation tooling.

What is MDX?

A .mdx file has exactly the same syntax as a regular Markdown file, but lets you import interactive JSX components and embed them within your content. Support for Vue components is in alpha. It’s easy to get MDX set up with Create React App. There are MDX plugins for Next.js and Gatsby. The forthcoming version two release of Docusaurus will also come with built-in support.

Writing documentation with Docusaurus

Docusaurus is made by Facebook and used by every Facebook open source project, apart from React. It’s also used by many major open source projects outside of Facebook, including Redux, Prettier, Gulp and Babel.

A screenshot of logos of all the various frameworks that support Docusaurus, including React, Gulp, Jest, Babel, Redux and Prettier.
Projects making use of Docusaurus.

You can use Docusaurus to document anything — it isn’t front-end specific. Docusaurus uses React under the hood, but you don’t have to know that framework to make use of it. It’ll take your Markdown files and turn them into a nicely-structured, well-formatted and readable documentation site, with a nice design right out of the box.

A screenshot of the Redux documentation homepage with the headline Getting Started with Redux.
The Redux site shows the typical Docusaurus layout

Sites created with Docusaurus can also include a Markdown-based blog. Prism.js is included by default for zero-setup syntax highlighting. While relatively new, Docusaurus has proven popular, being voted the number one new tool of 2018 on StackShare.

Other options for written content

Docusaurus specifically caters to building documentation. Of course, there are a million and one ways to make a website — so you could roll your own solution with any back-end language, CMS, or static site generator.

The documentation sites for React, IBM’s design system, Apollo and Ghost CMS use Gatsby, for example — a generic static site generator often used for blogs. If you work with the Vue framework, VuePress is becoming a popular option. MkDocs is an open source static site generator for creating documentation, written in Python and configured with a single YAML file. GitBook is a popular paid product that’s free for open-source and non-profit teams. If you’re building internal documentation and want something easy, the reading experience on GitHub itself isn’t half bad, so you could just commit some Markdown files and leave it at that.

Documenting components: Docz, Storybook and Styleguidist

Style guides, design systems, pattern libraries — whatever you want to call them — have become a hugely popular area of concern in the last decade. What’s really made the difference in turning them from vanity projects into useful tools isn’t the pontificating of thought leaders but the emergence of component-driven frameworks, like React, and the tools mentioned here.

Storybook, Docz and Styleguidist all do much the same thing: display interactive UI components and document their API. A project may have dozens or even hundreds of components to keep track of — all with a variety to states and styles. If you want components to be reused, people have to know that they exist. We aid discoverability when we catalog components. A style guide gives an easily searchable and scannable overview of all your UI components. This helps to maintain visual consistency and avoid duplicating work.

These tools provide a convenient way to review different states. It can be difficult to reproduce every state of a component in the context of a real application. Rather than needing to click through an actual app, developing a component in isolation can be helpful. Hard-to-reach states (like a loading state, for example) can be mocked.

Dan Green wrote a nice synopsis of the benefits of using Storybook, but it applies equally to Docz and Styleguidist:

“Storybook has made it really easy for designers who code to collaborate with engineers. By working in storybook they don’t need to get a whole environment running (docker container, etc). For Wave, we have many important components that are only visible in the middle of a process that is short lived and time consuming to reproduce (i.e. a loading screen that only shows while a user is having their payment account set up). Before Storybook, we didn’t have a good way to work on these components and were forced to temporary hacks in order to make them visible. Now, with Storybook we have an isolated place to easily work on them, which has the bonus feature of being easily accessible for designers and PMs. It also makes it really easy for us to show off these states in sprint demos.”

– Dan Green, Wave Financial

As well as visualizing different states side-by-side and listing props, its often helpful to have written content about a component — whether its explaining the design rationale, use-cases, or describing the results of user-testing. Markdown is easy enough for *anybody* to learn — ideally a style guide should be a joint resource for designers and developers that both disciplines contribute to. Docz, Styleguidist and Storybook all offer a way to seamlessly intermingle Markdown with the components themselves.

Docz

Currently, Docz is a React-only project, but is working on support for Preact, Vue and web components. Docz is the newest of the three tools, but has already amounted over 14,000+ stars on GitHub. It is, to my mind, the easiest solution to work with. Docz provides two components — <Playground> and <Props>. These are imported and used directly in .mdx files.

import { Playground, Props } from "docz"; import Button from "../src/Button";  ## You can _write_ **markdown** ### You can import and use components  <Button>click</Button>

You can wrap your own React components with <Playground> to create the equivalent of an embedded CodePen or CodeSandbox — a view of your component alongside editable code.

<Playground>   <Button>click</Button> </Playground>

<Props> will show all the available props for a given React component, default values, and whether the prop is required.

<Props of={Button} />

I personally find this MDX-based approach the simplest to understand and the easiest to work with.

A screenshot of a Code Sandbox project making use of the tool to document the code for a Button component.

If you’re a fan of the React-based static-site generator Gatsby, Docz offers great integration.

Styleguidist

Just like with Docz, examples are written using Markdown syntax. Styleguidist uses Markdown code blocks (triple backticks) in regular .md files rather than MDX:

```js <Button onClick={() => console.log('clicked')>Push Me</Button> ```

Code blocks in Markdown usually just show the code. With Styleguidist, any code block with a language tag of js, jsx or javascript will be rendered as a React component along with the code. Just like with Docz, the code is editable — you can change props and instantly see the result.

A screenshot of the output of the documentation for a pink button made with Styleguidist.

Styleguidist will automatically create a table of props from either PropTypes, Flow or Typescript declarations.

A screenshot of a table of values that Styleguidiist generated for the pink button documentation, including values it accepts.

Styleguidist currently supports React and Vue.

Storybook

Storybook markets itself as “a development environment for UI components.” Rather than writing examples of components inside Markdown or MDX files, you write *stories* inside Javascript files. A *story* documents a particular state of a component. A component might have stories for a loading state and a disabled state, for example.

storiesOf('Button', module)   .add('disabled', () => (     <Button disabled>lorem ipsum</Button>   ))

Storybook is less straightforward to use than Styleguidist and Docz. At over 36,000 GitHub stars though, it’s the most popular option. It’s an open source project with 657 contributors and a full-time maintainer. It is used by, among others, Airbnb, Algolia, Atlassian, Lyft, and Salesforce. Storybook supports more frameworks than any other offering — React, React Native, Vue, Angular, Mithril, Ember, Riot, Svelte and plain HTML are all supported.

Writing documentation about components currently requires addons. In a future release, Storybook is taking inspiration from Docz and adopting MDX.

# Button  Some _notes_ about your button written with **markdown syntax**.  <Story name="disabled">   <Button disabled>lorem ipsum</Button> </Story>

Storybook’s new Docs feature is being rolled out incrementally over the next couple of months and looks set to be a big step forward.

Wrapping up

The benefits of pattern libraries have been extolled at nauseating length in a million Medium articles. When done well, they aid visual consistency and facilitate the creation of cohesive products. Of course, none of these tools can magic up a design system. That takes careful thought about both design and CSS. But when it comes time to communicate that system to the rest of an organization, Docz, Storybook and Styleguidist are all great options.

The post Front-End Documentation, Style Guides and the Rise of MDX appeared first on CSS-Tricks.

CSS-Tricks

, , , ,
[Top]

Encapsulating Style and Structure with Shadow DOM

This is part four of a five-part series discussing the Web Components specifications. In part one, we took a 10,000-foot view of the specifications and what they do. In part two, we set out to build a custom modal dialog and created the HTML template for what would evolve into our very own custom HTML element in part three.

Article Series:

  1. An Introduction to Web Components
  2. Crafting Reusable HTML Templates
  3. Creating a Custom Element from Scratch
  4. Encapsulating Style and Structure with Shadow DOM (This post)
  5. Advanced Tooling for Web Components (Coming soon!)

If you haven’t read those articles, you would be advised to do so now before proceeding in this article as this will continue to build upon the work we’ve done there.

When we last looked at our dialog component, it had a specific shape, structure and behaviors, however it relied heavily on the outside DOM and required that the consumers of our element would need to understand it’s general shape and structure, not to mention authoring all of their own styles (which would eventually modify the document’s global styles). And because our dialog relied on the contents of a template element with an id of “one-dialog”, each document could only have one instance of our modal.

The current limitations of our dialog component aren’t necessarily bad. Consumers who have an intimate knowledge of the dialog’s inner workings can easily consume and use the dialog by creating their own <template> element and defining the content and styles they wish to use (even relying on global styles defined elsewhere). However, we might want to provide more specific design and structural constraints on our element to accommodate best practices, so in this article, we will be incorporating the shadow DOM to our element.

What is the shadow DOM?

In our introduction article, we said that the shadow DOM was “capable of isolating CSS and JavaScript, almost like an <iframe>.” Like an <iframe>, selectors and styles inside of a shadow DOM node don’t leak outside of the shadow root and styles from outside the shadow root don’t leak in. There are a few exceptions that inherit from the parent document, like font family and document font sizes (e.g. rem) that can be overridden internally.

Unlike an <iframe>, however, all shadow roots still exist in the same document so that all code can be written inside a given context but not worry about conflicts with other styles or selectors.

Adding the shadow DOM to our dialog

To add a shadow root (the base node/document fragment of the shadow tree), we need to call our element’s attachShadow method:

class OneDialog extends HTMLElement {   constructor() {     super();     this.attachShadow({ mode: 'open' });     this.close = this.close.bind(this);   } }

By calling attachShadow with mode: 'open', we are telling our element to save a reference to the shadow root on the element.shadowRoot property. attachShadow always returns a reference to the shadow root, but here we don’t need to do anything with that.

If we had called the method with mode: 'closed', no reference would have been stored on the element and we would have to create our own means of storage and retrieval using a WeakMap or Object, setting the node itself as the key and the shadow root as the value.

const shadowRoots = new WeakMap();  class ClosedRoot extends HTMLElement {   constructor() {     super();     const shadowRoot = this.attachShadow({ mode: 'closed' });     shadowRoots.set(this, shadowRoot);   }    connectedCallback() {     const shadowRoot = shadowRoots.get(this);     shadowRoot.innerHTML = `<h1>Hello from a closed shadow root!</h1>`;   } }

We could also save a reference to the shadow root on our element itself, using a Symbol or other key to try to make the shadow root private.

In general, the closed mode for shadow roots exists for native elements that use the shadow DOM in their implementation (like <audio> or <video>). Further, for unit testing our elements, we might not have access to the shadowRoots object, making it unable for us to target changes inside our element depending on how our library is architected.

There might be some legitimate use cases for user-land closed shadow roots, but they are few and far between, so we’ll stick with the open shadow root for our dialog.

After implementing the new open shadow root, you might notice now that our element is completely broken when we try to run it:

See the Pen
Dialog example using template with shadow root
by Caleb Williams (@calebdwilliams)
on CodePen.

This is because all of the content we had before was added to and manipulated in the traditional DOM (what we’ll call the light DOM). Now that our element has a shadow DOM attached, there is no outlet for the light DOM to render. Let’s start fixing these issues by moving our content to the shadow DOM:

class OneDialog extends HTMLElement {   constructor() {     super();     this.attachShadow({ mode: 'open' });     this.close = this.close.bind(this);   }      connectedCallback() {     const { shadowRoot } = this;     const template = document.getElementById('one-dialog');     const node = document.importNode(template.content, true);     shadowRoot.appendChild(node);          shadowRoot.querySelector('button').addEventListener('click', this.close);     shadowRoot.querySelector('.overlay').addEventListener('click', this.close);     this.open = this.open;   }    disconnectedCallback() {     this.shadowRoot.querySelector('button').removeEventListener('click', this.close);     this.shadowRoot.querySelector('.overlay').removeEventListener('click', this.close);   }      set open(isOpen) {     const { shadowRoot } = this;     shadowRoot.querySelector('.wrapper').classList.toggle('open', isOpen);     shadowRoot.querySelector('.wrapper').setAttribute('aria-hidden', !isOpen);     if (isOpen) {       this._wasFocused = document.activeElement;       this.setAttribute('open', '');       document.addEventListener('keydown', this._watchEscape);       this.focus();       shadowRoot.querySelector('button').focus();     } else {       this._wasFocused && this._wasFocused.focus && this._wasFocused.focus();       this.removeAttribute('open');       document.removeEventListener('keydown', this._watchEscape);     }   }      close() {     this.open = false;   }      _watchEscape(event) {     if (event.key === 'Escape') {         this.close();        }   } }  customElements.define('one-dialog', OneDialog);

The major changes to our dialog so far are actually relatively minimal, but they carry a lot of impact. For starters, all our our selectors (including our style definitions) are internally scoped. For example, our dialog template only has one button internally, so our CSS only targets button { ... }, and those styles don’t bleed out to the light DOM.

We are, however, still reliant on the template that is external to our element. Let’s change that by removing the markup from our template and dropping it into our shadow root’s innerHTML.

See the Pen
Dialog example using only shadow root
by Caleb Williams (@calebdwilliams)
on CodePen.

Including content from the light DOM

The shadow DOM specification includes a means for allowing content from outside the shadow root to be rendered inside of our custom element. For those of you who remember AngularJS, this is a similar concept to ng-transclude or using props.children in React. With Web Components, this is done using the <slot> element.

A simple example would look like this:

<div>   <span>world <!-- this would be inserted into the slot element below --></span>   <#shadow-root><!-- pseudo code -->     <p>Hello <slot></slot></p>   </#shadow-root> </div>

A given shadow root can have any number of slot elements, which can be distinguished with a name attribute. The first slot inside of the shadow root without a name, will be the default slot and all content not otherwise assigned will flow inside that node. Our dialog really needs two slots: a heading and some content (which we’ll make default).

See the Pen
Dialog example using shadow root and slots
by Caleb Williams (@calebdwilliams)
on CodePen.

Go ahead and change the HTML portion of our dialog and see the result. Any content inside of the light DOM is inserted into the slot to which it is assigned. Slotted content remains inside the light DOM although it is rendered as if it were inside the shadow DOM. This means that these elements are still fully style-able by a consumer who might want to control the look and feel of their content.

A shadow root’s author can style content inside the light DOM to a limited extent using the CSS ::slotted() pseudo-selector; however, the DOM tree inside slotted is collapsed, so only simple selectors will work. In other words, we wouldn’t be able to style a <strong> element inside a <p> element within the flattened DOM tree in our previous example.

The best of both worlds

Our dialog is in a good state now: it has encapsulated, semantic markup, styles and behavior; however, some consumers of our dialog might still want to define their own template. Fortunately, by combining two techniques we’ve already learned, we can allow authors to optionally define an external template.

To do this, we will allow each instance of our component to reference an optional template ID. To start, we need to define a getter and setter for our component’s template.

get template() {   return this.getAttribute('template'); }  set template(template) {   if (template) {     this.setAttribute('template', template);   } else {     this.removeAttribute('template');   }   this.render(); }

Here we’re doing much the same thing that we did with our open property by tying it directly to its corresponding attribute. But at the bottom, we’re introducing a new method to our component: render. We are going to use our render method to insert our shadow DOM’s content and remove that behavior from the connectedCallback; instead, we will call render when our element is connected:

connectedCallback() {   this.render(); }  render() {   const { shadowRoot, template } = this;   const templateNode = document.getElementById(template);   shadowRoot.innerHTML = '';   if (templateNode) {     const content = document.importNode(templateNode.content, true);     shadowRoot.appendChild(content);   } else {     shadowRoot.innerHTML = `<!-- template text -->`;   }   shadowRoot.querySelector('button').addEventListener('click', this.close);   shadowRoot.querySelector('.overlay').addEventListener('click', this.close);   this.open = this.open; }

Our dialog now has some really basic default stylings, but also gives consumers the ability to define a new template for each instance. If we wanted, we could even use attributeChangedCallback to make this component update based on the template it’s currently pointing to:

static get observedAttributes() { return 'open', 'template']; }  attributeChangedCallback(attrName, oldValue, newValue) {   if (newValue !== oldValue) {     switch (attrName) {       /** Boolean attributes */       case 'open':         this[attrName] = this.hasAttribute(attrName);         break;       /** Value attributes */       case 'template':         this[attrName] = newValue;         break;     }   } }

See the Pen
Dialog example using shadow root, slots and template
by Caleb Williams (@calebdwilliams)
on CodePen.

In the demo above, changing the template attribute on our <one-dialog> element will alter which design is being used when the element is rendered.

Strategies for styling the shadow DOM

Currently, the only reliable way to style a shadow DOM node is by adding a <style> element to the shadow root’s inner HTML. This works fine in almost every case as browsers will de-duplicate stylesheets across these components, where possible. This does tend to add a bit of memory overhead, but generally not enough to notice.

Inside of these style tags, we can use CSS custom properties to provide an API for styling our components. Custom properties can pierce the shadow boundary and effect content inside a shadow node.

“Can we use a <link> element inside of a shadow root?” you might ask. And, in fact, we can. The trouble comes when trying to reuse this component across multiple applications as the CSS file might not be saved in a consistent location throughout all apps. However, if we are certain as to the element’s stylesheet location, then using <link> is an option. The same holds true for including an @import rule in a style tag.

CSS custom properties

One of the benefits of using CSS custom properties — also called CSS variables — is that they bleed through the shadow DOM. This is by design, giving component authors a surface for allowing theming and styling of their components from the outside. It is important to note, however, that since CSS cascades, changes to custom properties made inside a shadow root do not bleed back up.

See the Pen
CSS custom properties and shadow DOM
by Caleb Williams (@calebdwilliams)
on CodePen.

Go ahead and comment out or remove the variables set in the CSS panel of the demo above and see how this impacts the rendered content. Afterward, you can take a look at the styles in the shadow DOM’s innerHTML, you’ll see how the shadow DOM can define its own property that won’t affect the light DOM.

Constructible stylesheets

At the time of this writing, there is a proposed web feature that will allow for more modular styling of shadow DOM and light DOM elements using constructible stylesheets that has already landed in Chrome 73 and received positive signaling from Mozilla.

This feature would allow authors to define stylesheets in their JavaScript files similar to how they would write normal CSS and share those styles across multiple nodes. So, a single stylesheet could be appended to multiple shadow roots and potentially the document as well.

const everythingTomato = new CSSStyleSheet(); everythingTomato.replace('* { color: tomato; }');  document.adoptedStyleSheets = [everythingTomato];  class SomeCompoent extends HTMLElement {   constructor() {     super();     this.adoptedStyleSheets = [everythingTomato];   }      connectedCallback() {     this.shadowRoot.innerHTML = `<h1>CSS colors are fun</h1>`;   } }

In the above example, the everythingTomato stylesheet would be simultaneously applied to the shadow root and to the document’s body. This feature would be very useful for teams creating design systems and components that are intended to be shared across multiple applications and frameworks.

In the next demo, we can see a really basic example of how this can be utilized and the power that constructble stylesheets offer.

See the Pen
Construct style sheets demo
by Caleb Williams (@calebdwilliams)
on CodePen.

In this demo, we construct two stylesheets and append them to the document and to the custom element. After three seconds, we remove one stylesheet from our shadow root. For those three seconds, however, the document and the shadow DOM share the same stylesheet. Using the polyfill included in that demo, there are actually two style elements present, but Chrome Canary runs this natively.

That demo also includes a form for showing how a sheet’s rules can easily and effectively changed asynchronously as needed. This addition to the web platform can be a powerful ally for those creating design systems that span multiple frameworks or site authors who want to provide themes for their websites.

There is also a proposal for CSS Modules that could eventually be used with the adoptedStyleSheets feature. If implemented in its current form, this proposal would allow importing CSS as a module much like ECMAScript modules:

import styles './styles.css';  class SomeCompoent extends HTMLElement {   constructor() {     super();     this.adoptedStyleSheets = [styles];   } }

Part and theme

Another feature that is in the works for styling Web Components are the ::part() and ::theme() pseudo-selectors. The ::part() specification will allow authors to define parts of their custom elements that have a surface for styling:

class SomeOtherComponent extends HTMLElement {   connectedCallback() {     this.attachShadow({ mode: 'open' });     this.shadowRoot.innerHTML = `       <style>h1 { color: rebeccapurple; }</style>       <h1>Web components are <span part="description">AWESOME</span></h1>     `;   } }      customElements.define('other-component', SomeOtherComponent);

In our global CSS, we could target any element that has a part called description by invoking the CSS ::part() selector.

other-component::part(description) {   color: tomato; }

In the above example, the primary message of the <h1> tag would be in a different color than the description part, giving custom element authors the ability to expose styling APIs for their components and maintain control over the pieces they want to maintain control over.

The difference between ::part() and ::theme() is that ::part() must be specifically selected whereas ::theme() can be nested at any level. The following would have the same effect as the above CSS, but would also work for any other element that included a part="description" in the entire document tree.

:root::theme(description) {   color: tomato; }

Like constructible stylesheets, ::part() has landed in Chrome 73.

Wrapping up

Our dialog component is now complete, more-or-less. It includes its own markup, styles (without any outside dependencies) and behaviors. This component can now be included in projects that use any current or future frameworks because they are built against the browser specifications instead of third-party APIs.

Some of the core controls are a little verbose and do rely on at least a moderate knowledge of how the DOM works. In our final article, we will discuss higher-level tooling and how to incorporate with popular frameworks.

Article Series:

  1. An Introduction to Web Components
  2. Crafting Reusable HTML Templates
  3. Creating a Custom Element from Scratch
  4. Encapsulating Style and Structure with Shadow DOM (This post)
  5. Advanced Tooling for Web Components (Coming soon!)

The post Encapsulating Style and Structure with Shadow DOM appeared first on CSS-Tricks.

CSS-Tricks

, , ,
[Top]

Web Standards Meet User-Land: Using CSS-in-JS to Style Custom Elements

The popularity of CSS-in-JS has mostly come from the React community, and indeed many CSS-in-JS libraries are React-specific. However, Emotion, the most popular library in terms of npm downloads, is framework agnostic.

Using the shadow DOM is common when creating custom elements, but there’s no requirement to do so. Not all use cases require that level of encapsulation. While it’s also possible to style custom elements with CSS in a regular stylesheet, we’re going to look at using Emotion.

We start with an install:

npm i emotion

Emotion offers the css function:

import {css} from 'emotion';

css is a tagged template literal. It accepts standard CSS syntax but adds support for Sass-style nesting.

const buttonStyles = css`   color: white;   font-size: 16px;   background-color: blue;    &:hover {     background-color: purple;   } `

Once some styles have been defined, they need to be applied. Working with custom elements can be somewhat cumbersome. Libraries — like Stencil and LitElement — compile to web components, but offer a friendlier API than what we’d get right out of the box.

So, we’re going to define styles with Emotion and take advantage of both Stencil and LitElement to make working with web components a little easier.

Applying styles for Stencil

Stencil makes use of the bleeding-edge JavaScript decorators feature. An @Component decorator is used to provide metadata about the component. By default, Stencil won’t use shadow DOM, but I like to be explicit by setting shadow: false inside the @Component decorator:

@Component({   tag: 'fancy-button',   shadow: false })

Stencil uses JSX, so the styles are applied with a curly bracket ({}) syntax:

export class Button {   render() {     return <div><button class={buttonStyles}><slot/></button></div>   } }

Here’s how a simple example component would look in Stencil:

import { css, injectGlobal } from 'emotion'; import {Component} from '@stencil/core';  const buttonStyles = css`   color: white;   font-size: 16px;   background-color: blue;   &:hover {     background-color: purple;   } ` @Component({   tag: 'fancy-button',   shadow: false }) export class Button {   render() {     return <div><button class={buttonStyles}><slot/></button></div>   } }

Applying styles for LitElement

LitElement, on the other hand, use shadow DOM by default. When creating a custom element with LitElement, the LitElement class is extended. LitElement has a createRenderRoot() method, which creates and opens a shadow DOM:

createRenderRoot()  {   return this.attachShadow({mode: 'open'}); }

Don’t want to make use of shadow DOM? That requires re-implementing this method inside the component class:

class Button extends LitElement {   createRenderRoot() {       return this;   } }

Inside the render function, we can reference the styles we defined using a template literal:

render() {   return html`<button class=$ {buttonStyles}>hello world!</button>` }

It’s worth noting that when using LitElement, we can only use a slot element when also using shadow DOM (Stencil does not have this problem).

Put together, we end up with:

import {LitElement, html} from 'lit-element'; import {css, injectGlobal} from 'emotion'; const buttonStyles = css`   color: white;   font-size: 16px;   background-color: blue;   &:hover {     background-color: purple;   } `  class Button extends LitElement {   createRenderRoot() {     return this;   }   render() {     return html`<button class=$ {buttonStyles}>hello world!</button>`   } }  customElements.define('fancy-button', Button);

Understanding Emotion

We don’t have to stress over naming our button — a random class name will be generated by Emotion.

We could make use of CSS nesting and attach a class only to a parent element. Alternatively, we can define styles as separate tagged template literals:

const styles = {   heading: css`     font-size: 24px;   `,   para: css`     color: pink;   ` } 

And then apply them separately to different HTML elements (this example uses JSX):

render() {   return <div>     <h2 class={styles.heading}>lorem ipsum</h2>     <p class={styles.para}>lorem ipsum</p>   </div> }

Styling the container

So far, we’ve styled the inner contents of the custom element. To style the container itself, we need another import from Emotion.

import {css, injectGlobal} from 'emotion';

injectGlobal injects styles into the “global scope” (like writing regular CSS in a traditional stylesheet — rather than generating a random class name). Custom elements are display: inline by default (a somewhat odd decision from spec authors). In almost all cases, I change this default with a style applied to all instances of the component. Below are the buttonStyles which is how we can change that up, making use of injectGlobal:

injectGlobal` fancy-button {   display: block; } `

Why not just use shadow DOM?

If a component could end up in any codebase, then shadow DOM may well be a good option. It’s ideal for third party widgets — any CSS that’s applied to the page simply won’t break the the component, thanks to the isolated nature of shadow DOM. That’s why it’s used by Twitter embeds, to take one example. However, the vast majority of us make components for for a particular site or app and nowhere else. In that situation, shadow DOM can arguably add complexity with limited benefit.

The post Web Standards Meet User-Land: Using CSS-in-JS to Style Custom Elements appeared first on CSS-Tricks.

CSS-Tricks

, , , , , , ,
[Top]