3 ms·

I agree with jdudek here. While I'd never use important, I usually have a lot of small utility classes like bold, italics, uppercase, truncated etc. I don't se

I agree with jdudek here. While I'd never use important, I usually have a lot of small utility classes like bold, italics, uppercase, truncated etc. I don't see what's wrong here - they come in handy when you need a one-time style alteration.

robmcm 11y ago
The intentions are baked into your class name, if you were to change the style later and favor underlining rather than bold text, it would require a change to the HTML (or some rather misleading code). The same could be said for a mobile device, where italic could be hard to read, so, say a different font is used. Again this would require changes to the HTML and breaks the separation of style from markup. It doesn't particularly offend me, but I though it would be worth pointing out why some people disagree with this style of class naming.
- moron4hire 11y ago
  I once semi-started questioning whether I had gone colorblind or taken acid or something after having to work on a page that had style classes named after cerrain colors like "red", or "yellow", but there were no such colors on the screen. Incidentally, they had also ended up being reused to do some position and size styling, as well. Just complete malarky. I think of this stuff as the equivalent of walking into a job site and finding a dozen surge protectors daisy-chained and clustered together, with everyone there oblivious to the problem. "What? If it works, it works. Don't criticize."
- talmand 11y ago
  There's nothing fundamentally wrong with having such utility classes. It could have a distinct use, especially for Javascript. It's just you shouldn't use such a class solely for design purposes, for the reasons you point out.
  - robmcm 11y ago
    Yes using something like "strong" rather than "bold" as they did in the HTML spec. For custom sections where you want to add styles you should consider what you are styling such as an "event", "highlight", "keyword", "first", "last" etc. Although the HTML5 tags are a lot more descriptive, numerous and extensible now, so css classes may not be the only option to add style descriptors to your content.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Is there an accessibility issue? You are using style to bold text, but bolding text is almost always a semantics issue of wanting to emphasize the text, not merely make it look different just for style reasons. So someone with a screen reader would have a far more difficult time getting the correct semantics from this page. Now I'm not saying one should go out of their way to ensure every single accessibility technology can use their site, but when the more accessible way of emphasizing text is quite easy to use, I could see saying that using style for semantics is wrong.
- talmand 11y ago
  If you want to actually emphasize a bit of text then you should wrap it with the appropriate tags. Using font-weight is usually just a design decision for the visual, not necessarily to emphasize the text.

robmcm 11y ago

The intentions are baked into your class name, if you were to change the style later and favor underlining rather than bold text, it would require a change to the HTML (or some rather misleading code). The same could be said for a mobile device, where italic could be hard to read, so, say a different font is used. Again this would require changes to the HTML and breaks the separation of style from markup. It doesn't particularly offend me, but I though it would be worth pointing out why some people disagree with this style of class naming.

moron4hire 11y ago
I once semi-started questioning whether I had gone colorblind or taken acid or something after having to work on a page that had style classes named after cerrain colors like "red", or "yellow", but there were no such colors on the screen. Incidentally, they had also ended up being reused to do some position and size styling, as well. Just complete malarky. I think of this stuff as the equivalent of walking into a job site and finding a dozen surge protectors daisy-chained and clustered together, with everyone there oblivious to the problem. "What? If it works, it works. Don't criticize."
talmand 11y ago
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with having such utility classes. It could have a distinct use, especially for Javascript. It's just you shouldn't use such a class solely for design purposes, for the reasons you point out.
- robmcm 11y ago
  Yes using something like "strong" rather than "bold" as they did in the HTML spec. For custom sections where you want to add styles you should consider what you are styling such as an "event", "highlight", "keyword", "first", "last" etc. Although the HTML5 tags are a lot more descriptive, numerous and extensible now, so css classes may not be the only option to add style descriptors to your content.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

Is there an accessibility issue? You are using style to bold text, but bolding text is almost always a semantics issue of wanting to emphasize the text, not merely make it look different just for style reasons. So someone with a screen reader would have a far more difficult time getting the correct semantics from this page. Now I'm not saying one should go out of their way to ensure every single accessibility technology can use their site, but when the more accessible way of emphasizing text is quite easy to use, I could see saying that using style for semantics is wrong.

talmand 11y ago
If you want to actually emphasize a bit of text then you should wrap it with the appropriate tags. Using font-weight is usually just a design decision for the visual, not necessarily to emphasize the text.