I probably don’t need to tell you that if you want to make it easier marketing yourself as a strong front-end web developer, it’s important to learn React. No, it’s not absolutely crucial, nor is it required. But React is undoubtedly the most important UI library in the front-end landscape in 2019 and it’s not going away anytime soon.
For example, consider the following code:
A common UI pattern for a range slider is to allow the user to move the slider and display the value of it somewhere on the page, changing the displayed value as the user moves the slider.
I think the expected behaviour in such a case is that the value should display instantly, as the user is moving the slider, rather than the page waiting for the slider to finish moving before the displayed value is updated. I suppose there could be cases where you prefer a delay over instant results, but I think the expected behaviour is to display the results instantly.
As you’ll see in the videos below and in your own testing, the behaviour of the
input event compared to the
change event is not exactly the same in different browsers when applied to a range slider.
A trackback on one of my previous posts (yeah, trackbacks aren’t just for spam) alerted me to an interesting point brought up by a blogger named Matt Pass. In his post entitled Walnut, Meet jQuery Sledgehammer he politely explains why he feels it’s overkill to use jQuery in a simple tutorial post.
This article was first published on June 1, 2010 and has been updated to include a few extra features and an improved code base.
I’m a huge baseball fan, so earlier this year, just for a fun side project, I recreated the MLB.com Flash content switcher using jQuery and CSS3.
My goal with this project was to try to recreate the switcher without any extraneous images or other non-essential elements that tend to make stuff less maintainable.
My version uses CSS3’s
border-radius, RGBA colors, opacity, and a small use of a gradient, and still looks acceptable in non-supportive browsers (although the jQuery is not as smooth in IE6 & IE7). Be sure to look at the real version on MLB.com for comparison; there are a few small differences, but mine is basically the same.
Here is a simple example:
Although the lack of cross-browser CSS selector support has caused a number of useful CSS selectors to go almost unnoticed, developers can still manipulate styles on their pages using some of these little-used selectors through jQuery.
Below I’ve prepared a simple table that describes a number of CSS selectors that are not cross-browser compatible, along with the jQuery syntax for each. The syntaxes are exactly the same as they would be in CSS, save for the jQuery wrapper (just remove
$() and the quotes to get the CSS syntax), so using these selectors in jQuery will provide somewhat of a practice ground to prepare you for when they’re fully supported by all commonly-used browsers.
If you type this phrase into Google, Impressive Webs currently comes in at around result 115. Not to mention the fact that the article that comes up doesn’t really address this issue directly. That’s not a very good ranking for that search phrase — yet somehow people are still finding one of my pages through that search.
It is obvious that developers — likely beginners — are having issues getting the proper results when utilizing the
I tried to include stuff that was not mentioned in those other posts, but I’m sure there is a little bit of overlap. Keep in mind that these are brief tips and recommendations, so I don’t go into great detail about the reasons and such, but I may go into some of them in depth in future articles and tutorials.