> For instance, it is easy for a user to land at an awkward scroll position which leaves an item partially on-screen when panning.
> To this end, this module introduces scroll snap positions which enforce the scroll positions that a scroll container’s scrollport may end at after a scrolling operation has completed.
Which is exactly what this page is doing.
> primarily a touch interaction
It's exclusively a scroll interaction, whether the pointer event is the result of mouse or touch input.
> the DOM page is still scrolling natively
I'm not sure what you're trying to say by "DOM page." JS is reacting to the scroll position of the viewport. The user experience is the same.
Sorry to disagree. The interaction you see in the page is not scroll snapping.
With scroll snapping you the user have always control of the scrollable content. What you do not have control over is where it will stop scrolling. A similar behavior to forced guides in a movable element on rails (such as drawers).
This page doesn’t scroll at all, and uses the scroll as a time control for a “movie”. And that is scroll jacking, as it hijacks the scroll position to do something completely different.
This page, at least on mobile, is also guilty of implementing it in the worst way possible: without any alternative scroll indications and without smooth continuous transitions that make it clear that you are controlling the animation through the scroll.
Apple is somewhat better at doing this since the scrolljacking procedure usually brings you to an element which, at the end of a glamourous entrance, actually scrolls away with the page.
He literally owns the property of his neighbors in order to make his living situation more comfortable. It's sort of like a king granting lands to lords he approves of.
Also, what's to stop him from kicking those people out if he changes his mind? I doubt Zuck would ever write a honest contract that held him accountable for anything.
Like everything else is a free economy, it was a consensual transaction. If Zuck offered me $1 mil for my small apartment, and said I could live in it, I'd take the deal. He purchased their homes and then leased them back to them, what's the problem here other than how it can be construed to "sound bad"?
That's how America works. It is a feudal system where the rich buy the laws, gated communities, college admissions, genes, designer babies, and pandemic vaccines they want.
Interesting aside. Back on topic: the homes were not granted to Zuckerberg; and his residents are not serfs. So they are not "perfectly comparable," they are barely comparable.
(not to mention serfs could not be bought alone, they could be sold with the land. Maybe you are thinking of slaves?)
While I think breck's phrasing is a bit overstated, and sometimes you really do want to have two contrasting clauses in a single sentence, their statement was (I presume intentionally!) self-illustrating:
> I respect your comment but you can ignore the left half of any but comment.
"I respect your comment, but..." isn't doing any meaningful work in this sentence; it's not contrasting anything, it's just introducing the actual point: "You can ignore the left half of any 'but' comment." You don't really lose anything by taking out the left half.
> If you want heading anchor links, go for something like[...]
...something like `a > h1`. Anchors wrapping block headings feels...wrong, but it's valid HTML5.
Most browsers will set the inner `h1` as display: block so the click/tap target for the `a` becomes larger. (`h1 > a` with `display: block` would have the same result though).
Also make sure that content isn't being duplicated for the user, `a` and `h1` are waypoints for users. `aria-` attributes can help you here.
`a > h1 > title text` has basically the same set of problems as `h1 > a > title text`. I’m saying that the anchor link should be separate from the title text, and largely hidden (from screen readers and keyboard navigators).
LOTS of competition with "why did we ever stop using nested element selectors?!" projects like these. Baseline is you have to be better than Normalize, and this isn't.
Was anything but personal preference the reason for changing the link color, the body font to specific typefaces, the font-size to a little smaller than normal, etc?
Links are much worse, no focus, no text-decoration, confusing colors. You have to nail this stuff.
Normalize.css is a general CSS normalizer that caters to all web developers whereas SPCSS is merely my personal stylesheet that does not try to normalize anything at all. So indeed it is just my personal preference that is the reason for changing the link color and the body font.
I believe when you say "font-size to a little smaller than normal", you are talking about "font-size: 0.9em" for pre, code, etc. I have removed it now, so that they now have a font-size of 1em. Thank you for highlighting this issue.
Sorry, yes you're right. Use semantic elements when they are available. But otherwise, there's nothing wrong with divs. Assistive technologies mostly ignore them untill you give them meaning.
I think it would be, because a screen reader will try to call-out the topic of the document accurately and quickly. You don't want a user to have to dig through elements to find the real title of the page they're on.
hm I've worked at plenty of places that touted accessibility, and we would often leave out h1 on a lander page (there might be a few h2 instead as the highest ranking headers)
Where else can you find a sans-serif battle-tested over a century that's variable, for free?