This seems a bit silly. Yes, it is usable the way it is, but if there are several alerts it is definitely not optimal. The current height seems to be a case of someone thinking "Let's keep it cute and small, because I kinda like it looking cute and small when I'm just looking at it instead of actually trying to use it".
From a UX perspective it would make more sense to allow a greater height on the scrollable area. Offhand I see no reason why the maximum height could not be something like 50vh or so. There's no sane reason, given its intended function, to restrict it to 120px. Particularly when you consider that some people will want larger-than-standard text in their browsers.
The same would apply to the PM menu, of course. The profile menu expands to fit content. Makes sense for the others to do it too, providing they are not overflowing the viewport. :)
2.1 is harder to theme than 2.0 :o
Quote from: Kindred on September 12, 2021, 06:12:40 PMQuote from: Mick. on September 12, 2021, 06:11:20 PM2.1 is harder to theme than 2.0 :o
No, it's not. :P
Um, it is. 2.0 does not have classes bunched up like 2.1. I've found moving classes to the side in 2.1 to make things work but whatever. You know best..[thumbs down]
It's more complex in some ways. For one thing it's responsive, which is something extra to deal with, but necessary these days.
Overall I'm finding it not too bad. It's not perfect, and would benefit from a bit of streamlining and reorganisation, but it's generally quite workable.
Quote from: Mick. on September 12, 2021, 06:28:05 PMUm, it is. 2.0 does not have classes bunched up like 2.1. I've found moving classes to the side in 2.1 to make things work but whatever.
Splitting some of the bunched declarations is easy enough, and very useful for custom theming. The best way to deal with it (if you don't care about IE anymore) would be to use CSS variables. Then the declarations could be split by default, with the same elements calling the same variable by default. If you want something different, just add another variable where you want it.
One instance....
What tf is this?
/* Box-shadow only on this one. */
#wrapper {
clear: both;
background: #fff;
border: 1px solid #b8b8b8;
border-radius: 8px;
box-shadow: 0 2px 3px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14);
}
/* Set maximum width limit for content */
#top_section .inner_wrap, #wrapper, #header, #footer .inner_wrap {
max-width: 1200px;
margin: 0 auto;
width: 90%;
}
One time, should be enuff. Who ever did this was drunk
It could be cleaned up a bit. There's no real need for the id's, since .inner_wrap is only used for one purpose. This would be just as functional:
/* Box-shadow only on this one. */
#wrapper {
clear: both;
background: #fff;
border: 1px solid #b8b8b8;
border-radius: 8px;
box-shadow: 0 2px 3px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14);
}
/* Set maximum width limit for content */
#header, #wrapper, .inner_wrap {
max-width: 1200px;
margin: 0 auto;
width: 90%;
}And if .inner_wrap was just replaced with a basic .wrapper class, and that also added to #header and #wrapper, then it could be done like this:
/* Box-shadow only on this one. */
#wrapper {
clear: both;
background: #fff;
border: 1px solid #b8b8b8;
border-radius: 8px;
box-shadow: 0 2px 3px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14);
}
/* Set maximum width limit for content */
.wrapper {
max-width: 1200px;
margin: 0 auto;
width: 90%;
}
@Mick. (note the tongue out above...)
but, seriously, In order to achieve something like Bloc's Studio003 theme in 2.0, it required a fair number of template updates. In 2.1, I have essentially duplicated my 2.0 customization of Studio003 with CSS updates only.
Yes, the CSS could use some clean up -- but actually the bit that you quoted is completely valid. I'm not sure what your complaint about that bit was. I mean, I understand Ant's comment as a little more streamlined. but the original is not actually bad or badly formed.
Yup, it's ok. And for default it does make sense declaring the width and margins in one place. You can still split them if you need to.