Tips that boost your productivity
This is a very quick tip, about a pet peeve of mine in almost every CSS animation I see. As you may know, I’m a sucker for reducing the amount of code (as long as it remains human readable of course). I demonstrated a very similar example in my “CSS in the 4th dimension” talk, but I recently realized I never blogged about it (or seen anyone else do so).
Lets assume you have a simple animation of a pounding heart, like so:
Note: To understand the following, I expect you to know how regex lookahead works. If you don’t, read about it first and return here after you’re done.
I was quite excited to discover this, but to my dismay, Steven Levithan assured me it’s actually well known. However, I felt it’s so useful and underdocumented (the only references to the technique I could find was several StackOverflow replies) that I decided to blog about it anyway.
If you’ve been using regular expressions for a while, you surely have stumbled on a variation of the following problems:
Even though in ECMAScript we can use the caret (^) to negate a character class, we cannot negate anything else. Furthermore, even though we have the pipe character to mean OR, we have nothing that means AND. And of course, we have nothing that means “except” (subtraction). All these are fairly easy to do for single characters, through character classes, but not for entire sequences.
However, we can mimic all three operations by taking advantage of the fact that lookahead is zero length and therefore does not advance the matching position. We can just keep on matching to our heart’s content after it, and it will be matched against the same substring, since the lookahead itself consumed no characters. For a simple example, the regex /^(?!cat)\w{3}$/ will match any 3 letter word that is NOT “cat”. This was a very simple example of subtraction. Similarly, the solution to the subtraction problem above would look like /^(?!\d+[50]0)\d+$/.
For intersection (AND), we can just chain multiple positive lookaheads, and put the last pattern as the one that actually captures (if everything is within a lookahead, you’ll still get the same boolean result, but not the right matches). For example, the solution to the password problem above would look like /^(?=.*\d)(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[\W_]).{6,}$/i. Note that if you want to support IE8, you have to take this bug into account and modify the pattern accordingly.
Negation is the simplest: We just want a negative lookahead and a .+ to match anything (as long as it passes the lookahead test). For example, the solution to the negation problem above would look like /^(?!.*foo).+$/. Admittedly, negation is also the least useful on its own.
There are caveats to this technique, usually related to what actually matches in the end (make sure your actual capturing pattern, outside the lookaheads, captures the entire thing you’re interested in!), but it’s fairly simple for just testing whether something matches.
Steven Levithan took lookahead hacking to the next level, by using something similar to mimic conditionals and atomic groups. Mind = blown.
As much as I like .net magazine, I was recently outraged by their “Texturizing Web Type” article. It features a way to apply a texture to text with -webkit-mask-image, presenting it as an experimental CSS property and misleading readers. There are even -moz-, -o- and -ms- prefixes for something that is not present in any specification, and is therefore unlikely to ever be supported by any non-WebKit browser, which further contributes to the misdirection. A while back, I wrote about how detrimental to our work and industry such proprietary features can be.
A common response to such complaints is that they are merely philosophical and who cares if the feature works right now and degrades gracefully. This argument could be valid for some cases, when the style is just a minor, gracefully degrading enhancement and no standards compliant alternative is present (for example, I’ve used ::-webkit-scrollbar styles myself). However, this is not the case here. We have had a standards compliant alternative for this for the past 11 years and it’s called SVG. It can also do much more than masking, if you give it a chance.
A few days ago, the incredibly talented Roman Komarov posted an experiment of his with pure CSS “scrolling shadows”. If you’re using Google Reader, you are probably familiar with the effect:
In Roman’s experiment, he is using absolutely positioned pseudoelements to cover the shadows (which are basically radial gradients as background images), taking advantage of the fact that when you scroll a scrollable container, its background does not scroll with it, but absolutely positioned elements within do. Therefore, when you scroll, the shadows are no longer obscured and can show through. Furthermore, these pseudoelements are linear gradients from white to transparent, so that these shadows are uncovered smoothly.
When I saw Roman’s demo, I started wondering whether this is possible with no extra containers at all (pseudoelements included). It seemed like a perfect use case for background-attachment: local. Actually, it was the first real use case for it I had ever came up with or seen.
If you’ve used definition lists (<dl>) you’re aware of the problem. By default, <dt>s and <dd>s have display:block. In order to turn them into what we want in most cases (each pair of term and definition on one line) we usually employ a number of different techniques:
<dl> for each pair: Style dictating markup, which is baddisplay: run-in; on the <dt>: Browser support is bad (No Firefox support)<br> after each <dd> and setting both term and definition as display:inline: Invalid markup. Need I say more?If only adding <br>s was valid… Or, even better, what if we could insert <br>s from CSS? Actually, we can!
It all started a few months ago, when Chris Coyier casually asked me how would I move an element along a circle, without of course rotating the element itself. If I recall correctly, his solution was to use multiple keyframes, for various points on a circle’s circumference, approximating it. I couldn’t think of anything better at the time, but the question was stuck in the back of my head.
A while ago, I posted about how to use steps() as an easing function to create a typing animation that degrades gracefully.
Today I decided to simplify it a bit and make it more flexible, at the cost of browser support. The new version fully works in Firefox 1+ and IE10, since Opera and WebKit don’t support the ch unit and even though IE9 supports it, it doesn’t support CSS animations.
I always loved Github’s ability to publish pages for a project and get the strain out of your server. However, every time I tried it, I struggled to keep the gh-pages branch up to date. Until I discovered the awesome git rebase.
Usually my github workflow is like this:
git add . git status // to see what changes are going to be commited git commit -m 'Some descriptive commit message' git push origin master
Now, when I use gh-pages, there are only a few more commands that I have to use after the above:
git checkout gh-pages // go to the gh-pages branch git rebase master // bring gh-pages up to date with master git push origin gh-pages // commit the changes git checkout master // return to the master branch
I know this is old news to some of you (I’m a github n00b, struggling with basic stuff, so my advice is probably for other n00bs), but if I had read this a few months ago, it would’ve saved me big hassles, so I’m writing it for the others out there that are like me a few months ago.
Now if only I find an easy way to automate this… 🙂
And I’m not referring to learning.
For example, yesterday I was trying to write code for something and it ended up beng harder than I expected. It’s one of those rare cases where you can fully imagine how the solution should work, enough to tell it to another person, but you can’t put your thoughts to code and you feel you’re not smart enough.
I find that in those cases, it helps a lot to open a new editor window and try to write code that just works. Without being elegant, fast or maintainable. Just something that works properly. And after you manage to put your thoughts into (bad) code, it’s easy to refine it from there and end up with good code.
Just don’t stop at the bad code, like many beginners do. It’s like when designers sketch a rough draft for a logo, before drawing the digital version. Could you imagine how horrible it would be if they wanted to stop there and give the rough sketches to the client instead? 🙂
This is probably one of the things that everyone thinks they know how to do but many end up doing it wrong. After coming accross yet one more super fragile snippet of code for this, I decided a blog post was in order.
You want to remove the pound sign (#) from location.hash. For example, when the hash is "#foo", you want to get a string containing "foo". That’s really simple, right?