Tags: ted

6

sparkline

Three conference talks

Conference talks are like buses. They take a long time and you constantly ask yourself why you chose to get on board.

I’ll start again.

Conference talks are like buses. You wait for ages and then three come along at once. Or at least, three conference videos have come along at once:

  1. The video of the talk I gave at State Of The Browser called The Web Is Agreement.
  2. The video of the talk I gave at New Adventures called Building.
  3. The video of the talk I gave at Frontend United called Going Offline.

That last one is quite practical. It’s very much in the style of the book I wrote on service workers. If you’d like to see this talk, you should come to An Event Apart in Chicago in August.

The other two are …less practical. They’re kind of pretentious really. That’s kinda my style.

The Web Is Agreement was a one-off talk for State Of The Browser. I like how it turned out, and I’d love to give it again if there were a suitable event.

I will be giving my New Adventures talk again in Vancouver next month at the Design & Content conference. You should come along—it looks like it’s going to be a great event.

I’ve added these latest three conference talk videos to my collection. I’m using Notist to document past talks. It’s a great service! I became a paying customer just over a year ago and it was money well spent. I really like how I’ve been able to set up a custom domain:

speaking.adactio.com

CSS custom properties in generated content

Cassie posted a neat tiny lesson that she’s written a reduced test case for.

Here’s the situation…

CSS custom properties are fantastic. You can drop them in just about anywhere that a property takes a value.

Here’s an example of defining a custom property for a length:

:root {
    --my-value: 1em;
}

Then I can use that anywhere I’d normally give something a length:

.my-element {
    margin-bottom: var(--my-value);
}

I went a bit overboard with custom properties on the new Patterns Day site. I used them for colour values, font stacks, and spacing. Design tokens, I guess. They really come into their own when you combine them with media queries: you can update the values of the custom properties based on screen size …without having to redefine where those properties are applied. Also, they can be updated via JavaScript so they make for a great common language between CSS and JavaScript: you can define where they’re used in your CSS and then update their values in JavaScript, perhaps in response to user interaction.

But there are a few places where you can’t use custom properties. You can’t, for example, use them as part of a media query. This won’t work:

@media all and (min-width: var(--my-value)) {
    ...
}

You also can’t use them in generated content if the value is a number. This won’t work:

:root {
    --number-value: 15;
}
.my-element::before {
    content: var(--number-value);
}

Fair enough. Generated content in CSS is kind of a strange beast. Eric delivered an entire hour-long talk at An Event Apart in Seattle on generated content.

But Cassie found a workaround if the value you want to put into that content property is numeric. The CSS counter value is a kind of generated content—the numbers that appear in front of ordered list items. And you can control the value of those numbers from CSS.

CSS counters work kind of like variables. You name them and assign values to them using the counter-reset property:

.my-element {
    counter-reset: mycounter 15;
}

You can then reference the value of mycounter in a content property using the counter value:

.my-element {
    content: counter(mycounter);
}

Cassie realised that even though you can’t pass in a custom property directly to generated content, you can pass in a custom property to the counter-reset property. So you can do this:

:root {
    --number-value: 15;
}
.my-element {
    counter-reset: mycounter var(--number-value);
    content: counter(mycounter);
}

In a roundabout way, this allows you to use a custom property for generated content!

I realise that the use cases are pretty narrow, but I can’t help but be impressed with the thinking behind this. Personally, I would’ve just read that generated content doesn’t accept custom properties and moved on. I would’ve given up quickly. But Cassie took a step back and found a creative pass-the-parcel solution to the problem.

I feel like this is a hack in the best sense of the word: a creatively improvised solution to a problem or limitation.

I was trying to display the numeric value stored in a CSS variable inside generated content… Turns out you can’t do that. But you can do this… codepen.io/cassie-codes/p… (not saying you should, but you could)

Generation Style by Eric Meyer

It’s time for the afternoon talks at An Event Apart in Seattle. We’re going to have back-to-back CSS, kicking off with Eric Meyer. His talk is called Generation Style. The blurb says:

Consider, if you will, CSS generated content. We can, and sometimes even do, use it to insert icons before or after pieces of text. Occasionally we even use it add a bit of extra information. And once upon a time, we pressed it into service as a hack to get containers to wrap around their floated children. That’s all fine—but what good is generated content, really? What can we do with it? What are its limitations? And how far can we push content generation in a new landscape full of flexible boxes, grids, and more? Join Eric as he turns a spotlight on generated content and shows how it can be a generator of creativity as well as a powerful, practical tool for everyday use.

Wish me luck, ‘cause I’m going to try to capture the sense of this presentation…

So we had a morning of personas and user journeys. This afternoon: code, baby! Eric is going to dive into a very specific corner of CSS—generated content. For an hour. Let’s do it!

He shows the CSS Generated Content Module Level 3. Eric wants to focus on one bit: the pseudo-elements ::before and ::after. What does pseudo-element mean?

You might have used one of these pseudo-elements for blockquotes. Perhaps you’ve put a great big quotation mark in front of them.

blockquote:: after {
    content: "“";
    font-size: 4em;
    opacity: 0.67;
/* placement styles here */
}

Why is Eric using ::after? Because you can. You can put the ::after content wherever you want. But if your placement styles fail, this isn’t a good place for the generated content. So don’t do this. Use ::before.

Another example of using generated content is putting icons beside certain links:

a[href$=".pdf"]::after {
    content: url(i/icon.png);
    height: 1em;
    margin-right: 0.5em;
    vertical-align: top;
}

But these icons look yucky. But if you use larger images, they will be shown full size. You only have so much control over what happens in there. I mean, that’s true of all CSS: think of CSS as a series of strong suggestions. But here, we have even less control than we’re used to. Why isn’t the image 1em tall like I’ve specified in the CSS? Well, the generated content box is 1em tall but the image is breaking out of this box. How about this:

a[href]::after * {
    max-width: 100%;
    max-height: 100%
}

This doesn’t work. The image isn’t an element so it can’t be selected for.

The way around it is to use background images instead:

a[href$=".pdf"]::after {
    content: '';
    height: 1em; width: 1em;
    margin-right: 0.5em;
    vertical-align: top;
    background: center/contain;
    background-image: url(i/icon.png);
}

Notice there’s a right margin there. That stretches out the width of the whole link. That’s exactly the same as if there were an actual span in there:

a[href$=".pdf"] span {
    height: 1em; width: 1em;
    margin-right: 0.5em;
    vertical-align: top;
    background: center/contain;
    background-image: url(i/icon.png);
}

So why use generated content instead of a span? So that you don’t have to put extra spans in your markup.

Generated content is great for things that work great when they’re there, but still work fine if they’re not. It’s progressive enhancement.

You’ve almost certainly used generated content for the clearfix hack.

.clearfix::after {
    content: '';
    display: table;
    clear: both;
}

Ask your parents. It’s when we wanted to make the containing element for a group of floating elements to encompass the height of those elements. Ancient history, right? Well, Eric is showing an example of a certain large media company today. There are a lot of clearfixes in there.

Eric makes the clearfix visible:

.clearfix::after {
    content: '';
    display: table;
    clear: both;
    border: 10px solid purple;
}

It looks like a span: a 10 pixel wide box. Now change the display property:

.clearfix::after {
    content: '';
    display: block;
    clear: both;
    border: 10px solid purple;
}

Now it behaves more like a div than a span.

The big question here is: who cares?

Let’s say we’re making a site about corduroy pillows (I hear they’re really making headlines).

<header>
<h1>Corduroy pillows</h1>
<p>Lorum ipsum...</p>
</header>

We can add a box under the header:

header::after {
    content: " ";
    display: block;
    height: 1em;
}

You can do stuff with that extra content, like using a linear gradient:

header::after {
    content: " ";
    display: block;
    height: 1em;
    background: linear-gradient(to right, #DDD, #000, #DDD) center / 100% 1px no-repeat;
}

The colour stops are #DDD, #000, and #DDD. You get this nice gradiated line under the header. You can chain a bunch of of radial gradients together to get some nice effects. You could mix in some background images too. Now you’ve got some on-brand separators. You could use generated content to add some “under construction” separators.

By the way, ever struggled to keep track of the order of backgrounds? Think about how you would order layers in Photoshop.

How about if we could use generated content to make design tools?

div[id]::before {
    content: attr(id);
}

Now the generated content is taken from the id attribute. You can make it look like Firebug:

div[id]::before {
    content: '#' attr(id);
    font: 0.75rem monospace;
    position: absolute;
    top: 0;
    left: 0;
    border: 1px dashed red;
    padding: 0 0.25em;
    background: #FFD;
}

You can even make the content cover the whole box with bottom and right values too:

div[id]::before {
    content: '#' attr(id);
    font: 0.75rem monospace;
    position: absolute;
    top: 0;
    left: 0;
    bottom: 0;
    right: 0;
    border: 1px dashed red;
    padding: 0 0.25em;
    background: #FFD8;
}

(And yes, that is a hex value with opacity.)

Let’s make it less code-y:

div[id]::before {
    content: attr(id);
    font: bold 1.5rem Georgia serif;
    position: absolute;
    top: 0;
    left: 0;
    bottom: 0;
    right: 0;
    border: 1px dashed red;
    padding: 0 0.25em;  
    background: #FFD8;
}

Throw in some text-shadow. Maybe some radial gradients. We’re at the wireframe stage. Let’s drop in some SVG images to show lines across the boxes.

How about automating design touches?

pre {
    padding: 0.75em 1.5em;
    background: #EEE;
    font: medium Consolas, monospace;
    position: relative;
}

Let’s say that applies to:

<pre class="css">
...
</pre>

You can generate labels with that class attribute:

pre::before {
    content: attr(class);
    display: block;
    padding: 0.25em 0 0.15em;
    font: bold 1em Noah, sans-serif;
    text-align: center;
    text-transform: uppercase;
}

Let’s align it to the top of it’s parent with negative margins:

pre::before {
    content: attr(class);
    display: block;
    padding: 0.25em 0 0.15em;
    margin: -0.75em -1.5em 1em;
    font: bold 1em Noah, sans-serif;
    text-align: center;
    text-transform: uppercase;
}

Or you can use absolute positioning:

pre::before {
    content: attr(class);
    display: block;
    padding: 0.25em 0 0.15em;
    position: absolute;
    top: 0;
    right: 0;
    left: 0;
    font: bold 1em Noah, sans-serif;
    text-align: center;
    text-transform: uppercase;
}

Now let’s change the writing mode:

pre::before {
    content: attr(class);
    display: block;
    padding: 0.25em 0 0.15em;
    position: absolute;
    top: 0;
    right: 0;
    bottom: 0;
    writing-mode: vertical-rl;
    font: bold 1em Noah, sans-serif;
    text-align: center;
    text-transform: uppercase;
}

Now the text is running down the side, but it’s turned on its side. You can transform it:

pre::before {
    content: attr(class);
    display: block;
    padding: 0.25em 0 0.15em;
    position: absolute;
    top: 0;
    right: 0;
    bottom: 0;
    writing-mode: vertical-rl;
    transform: rotate(180deg);
    font: bold 1em Noah, sans-serif;
    text-align: center;
    text-transform: uppercase;
}

But if you this, be careful. Your left margin is no longer on the left. Everything’s flipped around.

You could also update the generated content according to the value of the class attribute:

pre.css:: before {
    content: '{ CSS }';
}

pre.html::before {
    content: '< HTML >';
}

pre.js::before,
pre.javascript::before {
    content: '({ JS })();';
}

It’s presentational, so CSS feels like the right place to do this. But you can’t generate markup—just text. Angle brackets will be displayed in their raw form.

But positioning is so old-school. Let’s use CSS grid:

pre {
    display: grid;
    grid-template-columns: min-content 1fr;
    grid-gap: 0.75em;
}

pre::before {
    content: attr(class);
    margin: -1em 0;
    padding: 0.25em 0.1em 0.25em 0;
    writing-mode: vertical-rl;
    transform: rotate(180deg);
    font: bold 1em Noah, sans-serif;
    text-align: center;
    text-transform: uppercase;
}

Heck, you could get rid of the negative margins by putting the code content inside a code element and giving that a margin of 1em.

You can see generated content in action on the website of An Event Apart:

li.news::before {
    content: attr(data-cat);
    background-color: orange;
    color: white;
}

The data-cat attribute (which contains a category value) is displayed in the generated content.

Cool. That’s all stuff we can do now. What about next?

Well, suppose you had to put some legalese on your website. You could generate the numbers of nested sections:

h1 { counter-reset: section; }
h2 { counter-reset: subsection; }

Increment the numbers each time:

h2 { counter-increment: section; }
h3 { counter-increment: subsection; }

And display those values:

h2::before {
    content: counter(section) ".";
}
h2::before {
    content: counter(section) counter ":" (subsection, upper-roman);
}

Soon you’ll be able to cycle through a list of counter styles of your own creation with a @counter-style block.

But remember, if you really need that content to be visible for everyone, don’t rely on generated content: put it in your markup. It’s for styles.

So, generated content. It’s pretty cool. You can do some surprising things with it. Maybe ::before this talk, you didn’t think about generated content much, but ::after this talk ,you will.

Mirrorworld

Over on the Failed Architecture site, there’s a piece about Kevin Lynch’s 1960 book The Image Of The City. It’s kind of fun to look back at a work like that, from today’s vantage point of ubiquitous GPS and smartphones with maps that bestow God-like wayfinding. How much did Lynch—or any other futurist from the past—get right about our present?

Quite a bit, as it turns out.

Lynch invented the term ‘imageability’ to describe the degree to which the urban environment can be perceived as a clear and coherent mental image. Reshaping the city is one way to increase imageability. But what if the cognitive map were complemented by some external device? Lynch proposed that this too could strengthen the mental image and effectively support navigation.

Past visions of the future can be a lot of fun. Matt Novak’s Paleofuture blog is testament to that. Present visions of the future are rarely as enjoyable. But every so often, one comes along…

Kevin Kelly has a new piece in Wired magazine about Augmented Reality. He suggests we don’t call it AR. Sounds good to me. Instead, he proposes we use David Gelernter’s term “the mirrorworld”.

I like it! I feel like the term won’t age well, but that’s not the point. The term “cyberspace” hasn’t aged well either—it sounds positively retro now—but Gibson’s term served its purpose in prompting discussing and spurring excitement. I feel like Kelly’s “mirrorworld” could do the same.

Incidentally, the mirrorworld has already made an appearance in the William Gibson book Spook Country in the form of locative art:

Locative art, a melding of global positioning technology to virtual reality, is the new wrinkle in Gibson’s matrix. One locative artist, for example, plants a virtual image of F. Scott Fitzgerald dying at the very spot where, in fact, he had his Hollywood heart attack, and does the same for River Phoenix and his fatal overdose.

Yup, that sounds like the mirrorworld:

Time is a dimension in the mirror­world that can be adjusted. Unlike the real world, but very much like the world of software apps, you will be able to scroll back.

Now look, normally I’m wary to the point of cynicism when it comes to breathless evocations of fantastical futures extropolated from a barely functioning technology of today, but damn, if Kevin Kelly’s enthusiasm isn’t infectious! He invokes Borges. He acknowledges the challenges. But mostly he pumps up the excitement by baldly stating possible outcomes as though they are inevitabilities:

We will hyperlink objects into a network of the physical, just as the web hyperlinked words, producing marvelous benefits and new products.

When he really gets going, we enter into some next-level science-fictional domains:

The mirrorworld will be a world governed by light rays zipping around, coming into cameras, leaving displays, entering eyes, a never-­ending stream of photons painting forms that we walk through and visible ghosts that we touch. The laws of light will govern what is possible.

And then we get sentences like this:

History will be a verb.

I kind of love it. I mean, I’m sure we’ll look back on it one day and laugh, shaking our heads at its naivety, but for right now, it’s kind of refreshing to read something so unabashedly hopeful and so wildly optimistic.

Seamfulness

I was listening to some items in my Huffduffer feed when I noticed a little bit of synchronicity.

First of all, I was listening to Tom talking about Thington, and he mentioned seamful design—the idea that “seamlessness” is not necessarily a desirable quality. I think that’s certainly true in the world of connected devices.

Then I listened to Jeff interviewing Matt about hardware startups. They didn’t mention seamful design specifically (it was more all cricket and cables), but again, I think it’s a topic that’s lurking behind any discussion of the internet of things.

I’ve written about seams before. I really feel there’s value—and empowerment—in exposing the points of connection in a system. When designers attempt to airbrush those seams away, I worry that they are moving from “Don’t make me think” to “Don’t allow me to think”.

In many ways, aiming for seamlessness in design feels like the easy way out. It’s a surface-level approach that literally glosses over any deeper problems. I think it might be driven my an underlying assumption that seams are, by definition, ugly. Certainly there are plenty of daily experiences where the seams are noticeable and frustrating. But I don’t think it needs to be this way. The real design challenge is to make those seams beautiful.

Contact

I left the office one evening a few weeks back, and while I was walking up the street, James Box cycled past, waving a hearty good evening to me. I didn’t see him at first. I was in a state of maximum distraction. For one thing, there was someone walking down the street with a magnificent Irish wolfhound. If that weren’t enough to dominate my brain, I also had headphones in my ears through which I was listening to an audio version of a TED talk by Donald Hoffman called Do we really see reality as it is?

It’s fascinating—if mind-bending—stuff. It sounds like the kind of thing that’s used to justify Deepak Chopra style adventures in la-la land, but Hoffman is deliberately taking a rigorous approach. He knows his claims are outrageous, but he welcomes all attempts to falsify his hypotheses.

I’m not noticing this just from a short TED talk. It’s been one of those strange examples of synchronicity where his work has been popping up on my radar multiple times. There’s an article in Quanta magazine that was also republished in The Atlantic. And there’s a really good interview on the You Are Not So Smart podcast that I huffduffed a while back.

But the most unexpected place that Hoffman popped up was when I was diving down a SETI (or METI) rabbit hole. There I was reading about the Cosmic Call project and Lincos when I came across this article: Why ‘Arrival’ Is Wrong About the Possibility of Talking with Space Aliens, with its subtitle “Human efforts to communicate with extraterrestrials are doomed to failure, expert says.” The expert in question pulling apart the numbers in the Drake equation turned out to be none other than Donald Hoffmann.

A few years ago, at a SETI Institute conference on interstellar communication, Hoffman appeared on the bill after a presentation by radio astronomer Frank Drake, who pioneered the search for alien civilizations in 1960. Drake showed the audience dozens of images that had been launched into space aboard NASA’s Voyager probes in the 1970s. Each picture was carefully chosen to be clearly and easily understood by other intelligent beings, he told the crowd.

After Drake spoke, Hoffman took the stage and “politely explained how every one of the images would be infinitely ambiguous to extraterrestrials,” he recalls.

I’m sure he’s quite right. But let’s face it, the Voyager golden record was never really about communicating with an alien intelligence …it was about how we present ourself.