Ask HN: Anyone have a really smart way to organize css?
I'd love to see an example of super organized, tight CSS. Do you organize by location (header, footer, body), by function (typography, position data), or both, with multiple instances of the same selector? Wondering how my css stacks up and where I could improve. Thanks! (:
121 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 189 ms ] threadI always put universal elements first (body, img, @font-face, etc.), then I just organize it top to bottom by page location (i.e. header, content, sidebar, footer, etc.). I also tab-indent so that elements within another are indented and "contained" underneath, making it easy for me to move from one section to the next. I also write the CSS horizontally, only making a new line for a new element.
I should also note that I'm a n00b :-), so this could be a horrible way to do it.
Also, when having quite a few properties for a selector, it's quite difficult to read when all is on one long line, so I use new lines for each property.
(I actually find the tab-indented elements really interesting and may have to try it on my next project!)
One thing you didn't mention were comments. I've seen some css files with great commenting. For instance, comments at the top that act as an index/table of content for the css file. Very nice!
My screen is wide, my editor is wide, my code is fairly wide, but the standard format for CSS is really narrow. Every time I see the vertical format in my editor, easily 80% of the window space is completely empty, and otherwise useless, and 80% of the CSS is not on the screen and I have to page up and down, or search, to find stuff.
This is a workflow optimization that works for me. It might work for others too.
Most of the command-line diff tools don't highlight changes within a single line, and annotation tools usually work on a per-line basis as well.
This is especially true when you're working either in a team environment or on a large site. The very nature of CSS (and how things cascade down) can become a nightmare when organization isn't taken into account from the start.
1. Using the 960 grid system (or your preferred grid flavor) 2. Grouping by the following:
Body Typography Forms (Other global stuff like links and buttons) /* Layout Element 1 / ID1 {} ID2 {} class1 {} class2 {} / Layout Element 2 */ ID3 {} ID4 {} class3 {} class4 {}
I also write my styles on one line, but that's just personal preference. I find it easier to scan down for the selector, then across for the property I want. I definitely don't do it for aesthetics or file size ;)
Other than that, the best advice I can offer that I DO follow is that I group all HTML elements together, all IDs together, and then all classes together. Within each of those groupings, everything is in alphabetical order.
and so forth.one thing to do is to place class names based on the url with your id's. the class name can be generated from the request_uri (assuming the html code is in a view/template/include).
example: <div id="container" class="contact_us">
then if you need tweaks to a specific page, just add #container.contact_us { foo: bar... }
All files get concatenated and minified before serving, obviously.
For a website: callouts, user quote styles, tables styles [zebra stripes, etc.], feature lists, intro paragraph styles, Flash/message styles, common control styles, etc.
I also have a "colors" partial where I put variables for all my color definitions, such as $light-blue, $dark-gray, and $background-color.
I utilize mixins heavily so I can modulize all my styling and make sure it's included in areas that are appropriate. I've learned this is the only way to handle CSS without styles getting too complicated and accidentally changing something where you didn't mean to.
Example (create a mixin that has certain styles for forms and then include it in a body.wizard page) this way I keep my CSS very dry.
General coding guidelines are horizontal. I recently switched to this. I used to do vertical and indentation but it's very hard to read with big files. I've found that it's a lot easier to read horizontal CSS.
I alpha all my styles from a-z.
- Almost all CSS goes in 1 big file. One line per selector to keep thinks clean and easy to find. Styles from external sources (like jQuery UI) go in separate files.
- Reset lines go at the top, if you use them, in a / RESET / section.
- Styles for individual HTML tags are next in the / HTML TAGS / section.
- Then a / UTILITY CLASSES / section for clearing floats, etc.
- Next comes site layout. Headers, footers, page width, etc. all go here. Just the layout though - think the grid. No real content styling yet.
- Now sections for each piece in the layout. Content styles go here. First a section for the / HEADER CONTENT /, then a big section for the / PAGE CONTENT / (vast majority of styles go here), then the / FOOTER CONTENT / styles.
Then @import everything in screen.css.
http://lanyrd.com/2008/barcamp-london-5/sg/
She splits everything in to general styles (basic HTML elements), helper styles (things like forms, notifications, icons), page structure (header, footer, layout columns etc), page components (reusable composable classes for components that occur on different pages in different combinations, such as a news teaser) and over-rides (special cases for individual pages, rarely used).
She hardly ever uses IDs, preferring classes for almost everything - because CSS written against classes can be used more than once on a page.
She uses CSSEdit's groups feature to make the CSS easier to navigate - it's all in one file. http://macrabbit.com/cssedit/
View the stylesheets on http://lanyrd.com/ and follow the link at the top to the unminified version to see annotated examples.
Goes hand-in-hand with javascript to ease selector targeting.
I never scope ID's either, that's the wrong way to do it. An ID is always unique so it is top-level.
I agree about IDs for JavaScript though.
Ids should be used only for scripts, and most of the time should be auto generated anyway.
Leave IDs for uniquely identifying an element on a page because you need to access it from a script.
Treating them like "Extra Strong" class names is a maintenance nightmare.
Would you mind elaborating on the JavaScript point? Is it for convenience with document.getElementById or something?
Using jQuery, I tend to prefer class selectors the same as in my CSS.
Don't worry, I'm sure all those developers are "doing it wrong" too.
I think it also has to do with frameworks. Sometimes frameworks spit out a lot of HTML you won't ever need. So the HTML is bloated in the first place. Then it's a hell of a job to style the mess.
When you are fortunate to control the HTML you should first start to optimize your HTML before you even start with CSS.
We use a far-future expires header (and serve from Amazon CloudFront), so browsers should only ever fetch the file once no matter how many pages on the site the user visits.
reset.css There's a bunch around, I use the one from htmlboilerplate.com, but there's many good ones available. (Eric Meyer's). You will almost never touch this file.
grid.css I only use this occasionally, when I'm working on sites where the grid is very clear and I take out all the stuff I'm not going to use. I usually go for a three col version of 960.gs and trim it to about 12 lines of css. Never touch this.
global.css Here you put your nav, your footer, you body styles, etc. I think that separating by colors and typography doesn't make sense, because you usually change a widget's appearance.
section.css I count on the body tag having a classname, so I can have body class="about" and then do...
This way you never override your styles accidentally.Miscellaneous I avoid the one declaration per line convention when I have similar styles and I want to be able to read them in a table format, i.e.
I usually start from the most generic to the more specific, but I don't worry too much about code order because in the end I just do a search and reach it in no time.1) Use as few separate stylesheets site-wide as possible so any contradicting or repetitive rules will be obvious.
2) Use one line per rule so I can scan the selectors quickly, then scroll horizontally if necessary
3) I prefer complex comma-separated selectors which set one or two properties to simple selectors which set many properties. Grouping in this way gets me closer to having constants, e.g. a specific hex color won't be rewritten again and again, it will just follow a complex selector list.
4) Once a selector works, I try to make it more general, e.g. "div.info { font-size: 12px }" can probably just be ".info { font-size: 12px }". More general rules will apply in more cases, so fewer overall rules will be necessary.
I'm going to finally start turning off text wrap. You've opened my eyes to this. Thanks for sharing.
This gives a max of two css files per page. For the landing page I compress the generic file along with the controller-specific css file for the default page into a single file. This speeds up the loading process while preventing too much bloat. Since the other pages are usually hit after the landing page they require only a single extra download. Any reset code can be included in there as well, although maintained as a separate file.
I doubt this approach is ideal when it comes to organizing things, but it's fairly fast when it comes to development. I design by including css in style="" and then refactoring the markup into classes once the design is complete. Saves a lot of back and forth while getting things lined up.
Using Haml:
Using Erb:Then use a per page sass file that references default.sass
If you want something pre-built that does all this use compass.
Stylus is great: http://learnboost.github.com/stylus/
I made a post about it, and personally prefer it to Sass and Less: http://nylira.com/stylus-the-revolutionary-successor-to-css/ The hardcore abbreviation mixins in my post seem to offend some coders. When you work in CSS and HTML hours every day though, every character saved adds up to a huge productivity boost.
My current project has 30 directories with 73 partial Sass files, which compile down to one 320kb file.
As to your question, I organize my partials based on controller and url structure.
Isn't that a lot to download? That's like 2 seconds on average to download that file in the U.S., and probably in the 10 seconds or higher range for a lot of folks. I guess if the download is delayed to after some kind of engagement (sign up, etc) it's not a big deal?
Is 320K of CSS really necessary? (legitimately asking)
Keep in mind that this only 42k gzipped.
I'm working on a few relatively complex web apps where the CSS download time don't come to anywhere near that size. In my world (mobile devices, in particular) 320k would be totally unacceptable. 100k is about the point where I start re-evaluating my design.
She used this approach at Facebook (and Yahoo, I think?) to successfully tidy up a huge code base of thousands of CSS files down to a more manageable few.
I attended her workshop at Webstock and since then had a chance to put it into practice on a 'get it up quick' green fields project (http://chchneeds.org.nz). I must say I was really pleasantly surprised at the way this approach just avoids a lot of the pain points, as a web developer/coder (ie not an html/css guru) I so often face when just getting the simplest things to 'work'.
I guess the hardest thing for me to get my head around to was that to make things more modular you had to let go (a tiny bit) of being so religious about 'semantic html' as a requirement for the HTML, but I think its worth it to get your CSS a whole lot more modular and 'pluggable' together.
Still a bit more work to do, IMHO, but I'm definitely going to be monitoring this project closely.
Nicole Sullivan's site: http://www.stubbornella.org/content/
html-reset.css layout-fixed.css page-backgrounds.css messages.css pages.css blocks.css navigation.css comments.css forms.css fields.css print.css ie.css ie6.css
Drupal's CSS optimization, once turned on, will roll all of these up for you automatically, so if you aren't using Drupal you will need some sort of build system to combine and minimize everything. But I think this is a good start.
On a side note, I really like the method the Zen theme uses for CSS columns. Worth checking that out as well.