Using CSS codes instead of (should be) built-in features

einat

So many features that where available in old SM, now require CSS codes.
Just to name a few that I’ve used (thanks to numerous d-grinners) – right-click protect msg, boarders around thumbnails, changing color while hovering, colors of links in captions.

And the questions is –
When the time comes and SM finally offers all those features, would the CSS codes interfere \ override \ do other strange things to options that could be set through the customizer?
They would wake up one day and have these features suddenly available, and then we would wake up the next day to learn that our site is one big mess.

A penny for your thoughts…

einat

Should I raise this to two pennies for your thoughts?

aschendel

I think you are asking a very good question. I personally am being patient - not investing blood sweat and tears into hard-to-code/test/maintain solutions. I have been only adding "must-have" tweaks or things that I don't think will "blow up" if they do nice big upgrades.

Thanks,

Andy

jwashburn

CSS is pretty harmless in terms of coding. The only thing that would really happen is there could be a conflict and depending on how and where the CSS code is pulled in would determine which one wins.

For example on the right click message. If they put a field in Account Settings somewhere to add a right click message, the worst thing that might happen is you see your message from CSS instead of the one you added in your Account Settings, then all you do is remove the code from your CSS.

Its a great reason to comment your code well. It wouldnt ever "break" anything, just possibly give some strange results at first.

aschendel

jwashburn wrote: »

CSS is pretty harmless in terms of coding. The only thing that would really happen is there could be a conflict and depending on how and where the CSS code is pulled in would determine which one wins.

Its a great reason to comment your code well. It wouldnt ever "break" anything, just possibly give some strange results at first.

I heartily disagree. CSS can easily make the entire site unusable since it appears that "our" CSS applies to the owner view (several people have had emergencies where they couldn't get into the Customizer due to a CSS mistake), and an even bigger problem is that very few people are aware of all the variations that need to be tested for. The position: absolute stuff people are putting in, the negative margins, the side-effects of the rounded corner hacks, pages and pages of copy/paste rules, etc. all include the distinct possibility that the smugger's site won't render well in some situations -- especially if/when SM releases updates that alter IDs, classes, HTML nesting, and CSS.

I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just of the opinion that each hack's risk (What's the worst that could happen...) should be intentionally and carefully weighed against each hack's reward (How awesome is that!?!).

Andy

macromeister

I started out thinking the main raison d'être for having a new system must be to enable SM to cut down on support costs. Under legacy they seemed to spend lots of time suggesting coded solutions, which must have been quite a commitment in time. But perhaps it was mostly volunteers who supplied it, as indeed seems to be the case now? I'm still not sure who is a volunteer and who is staff around here.

I have made only cosmetic changes using CSS, so that if new features are eventually supplied (eg; rounded image corners) I can switch easily to the SM standard interface for those new features. There does seem to be a lot of users copying code just to try and get features, some of which really ought to be standard in the interface.

jwashburn

aschendel wrote: »

I heartily disagree. CSS can easily make the entire site unusable since it appears that "our" CSS applies to the owner view (several people have had emergencies where they couldn't get into the Customizer due to a CSS mistake), and an even bigger problem is that very few people are aware of all the variations that need to be tested for. The position: absolute stuff people are putting in, the negative margins, the side-effects of the rounded corner hacks, pages and pages of copy/paste rules, etc. all include the distinct possibility that the smugger's site won't render well in some situations -- especially if/when SM releases updates that alter IDs, classes, HTML nesting, and CSS.

I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just of the opinion that each hack's risk (What's the worst that could happen...) should be intentionally and carefully weighed against each hack's reward (How awesome is that!?!).

Andy

I guess I could have been more clear. My point being that its only CSS, so its a styling function, not so much a programming function. Things might look wonky for a bit, but you are not "breaking" anything in the traditional sense.

Your site might render strange until you identify the CSS that needs to be updated or removed, but you are not losing functionality

jwashburn

macromeister wrote: »

I started out thinking the main raison d'être for having a new system must be to enable SM to cut down on support costs. Under legacy they seemed to spend lots of time suggesting coded solutions, which must have been quite a commitment in time. But perhaps it was mostly volunteers who supplied it, as indeed seems to be the case now? I'm still not sure who is a volunteer and who is staff around here.

I have made only cosmetic changes using CSS, so that if new features are eventually supplied (eg; rounded image corners) I can switch easily to the SM standard interface for those new features. There does seem to be a lot of users copying code just to try and get features, some of which really ought to be standard in the interface.

I dont know that would could all agree on what a standard interface should be. Personally I dont care much about rounded corners, other people really want them.

I really like that ability to customize just about whatever we want. I would prefer javascript to come back for sure.

I think one thing that would go along way to helping us that customize our site would be release notes. I know they update things on a daily basis, so I know it would be hard to keep up with, but they must have some that they use internally.

A place where we can go and look at new/fixed/updated features to keep an eye on things that might affect us.

Macro, this is NOT directed at you nor anyone else on this post, but I am blown away about how many people are upset that for 200 bucks a year they cant get exactly what they want out of their website. Custom site design is thousands of dollars, plus usually a couple hour of minimum cost per change for future updates.

I think we get quite a bit of bang for buck.

macromeister

jwashburn wrote: »

Macro, this is NOT directed at you nor anyone else on this post, but I am blown away about how many people are upset that for 200 bucks a year they cant get exactly what they want out of their website. Custom site design is thousands of dollars, plus usually a couple hour of minimum cost per change for future updates.

I think we get quite a bit of bang for buck.

I agree with that completely. It's great that some people who have technical skills in coding can get more out of SM for a low-cost (as you mention). I think the problem is that OTHER users are seeing those things and want some of them - you can see it in the threads that are being posted. They don't have the tech skills, and what they see/want is not in the interface, so they get frustrated. I suppose the same applies to other systems, such as Google Blogger where you can add CSS if you know what you are doing - otherwise you have to stick with the standard template interface. If the SM interface had x2 the features it has at present then I'm sure SM would charge more. That's the way these things work. I picked up a new car today and had to pay £2,000 more to get extra features!