7 ms·

This was fun. :) I feel like there should be another scoring axis rather than just time. I think selector length would be wrong, but something like selector co

This was fun. :) I feel like there should be another scoring axis rather than just time. I think selector length would be wrong, but something like selector complexity, or how robust the selector is to updates. I scored 3m 50s, but felt like some of my selectors were a bit 'dirty'.

jamiethompson 5y ago
I definitely "cheated" some of these by throwing in something horribly verbose rather than whatever a more correct solution would be
- Vinnl 5y ago
  I felt dirty when I did something like #one, #three, #five, #six, #nine (Or whatever the elements we had to select were.)
  - maaaaattttt 5y ago
    Same here, and to be honest I'm still not sure what the clean solution would be for this level. With that particular html structure and class/id usage there maybe isn't any…
    - dagurp 5y ago
      The hint suggests doing it this way. This solution is clean but it isn't very elegant.
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    Exactly. All the previous questions had real, elegant answers. This one felt like whacking the mole was _possible_, but not the right way.
_Microft 5y ago
The timer encourages quick and dirty solutions. It took me a while to think of :is(input, button):not([disabled]) instead of a longer solution that I used at first. Another example was span[data-item] which is enough to mark exactly the required items at that level but I had found a longer, more specific selector for that first.
- chrismorgan 5y ago
  > It took me a while to think of :is(input, button):not([disabled]) instead of a longer solution that I used at first. The intended solution is just :enabled. This is where I think this project has failed badly in its stated goal to “improve your CSS knowledge”, because all it offers in that direction is a little hint link; to actually teach, it needs a set of proposed solutions, and at the end show you any where you differed. Such a thing might also help suggesting just [data-item] instead of the needlessly-more-specific span[data-item]. And also whether :nth-child(2n+3) was the intended solution on one of them.
  - Vincenius 5y ago
    Thanks for your feedback! Just pushed an update to the project to show the solution which I thought of when creating the puzzle.

jamiethompson 5y ago

I definitely "cheated" some of these by throwing in something horribly verbose rather than whatever a more correct solution would be

Vinnl 5y ago
I felt dirty when I did something like #one, #three, #five, #six, #nine (Or whatever the elements we had to select were.)
- maaaaattttt 5y ago
  Same here, and to be honest I'm still not sure what the clean solution would be for this level. With that particular html structure and class/id usage there maybe isn't any…
  - dagurp 5y ago
    The hint suggests doing it this way. This solution is clean but it isn't very elegant.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  Exactly. All the previous questions had real, elegant answers. This one felt like whacking the mole was _possible_, but not the right way.

_Microft 5y ago

The timer encourages quick and dirty solutions. It took me a while to think of :is(input, button):not([disabled]) instead of a longer solution that I used at first. Another example was span[data-item] which is enough to mark exactly the required items at that level but I had found a longer, more specific selector for that first.

chrismorgan 5y ago
> It took me a while to think of :is(input, button):not([disabled]) instead of a longer solution that I used at first. The intended solution is just :enabled. This is where I think this project has failed badly in its stated goal to “improve your CSS knowledge”, because all it offers in that direction is a little hint link; to actually teach, it needs a set of proposed solutions, and at the end show you any where you differed. Such a thing might also help suggesting just [data-item] instead of the needlessly-more-specific span[data-item]. And also whether :nth-child(2n+3) was the intended solution on one of them.
- Vincenius 5y ago
  Thanks for your feedback! Just pushed an update to the project to show the solution which I thought of when creating the puzzle.