Design Shack

Being able to produce nice, competent design requires a very different skill set from the one developer has. It's not our job to know what are complementary colors, what is hierarchy etc. But when handed sketch/photoshop design it's part of my job to implement it.

It's not a coincidence that you brought up positioning.

> I can't center my divs properly.

I remember having a similar feeling. What made it click for me was searching for some articles like "how to master css".

Btw, just did that search and this is the article I remember I went over https://designshack.net/articles/css/5-steps-to-drastically-improve-your-css-knowledge-in-24-hours/, which is the first result.

Understanding how to position things I think was the biggest aha moment: floats, box model, the difference between positions such as fixed, static, absolute etc...

I think if you go over resources mentioned in that article you'll be good enough.

It feels like there is this idea that CSS is very simple, not a real thing, so we don't dedicate the time to learn it.
You wouldn't expect to be good with React after one day, would you? It takes time to learn js, having that base it's easy to pick up React in a few days. And then you read articles on best practices, staying up to date with new versions etc.

CSS requires much less, but still some time and effort. Treat it as technology, give few days, don't skip steps, just sit down and learn it.

You can't solve `x + 5 = 10` when you don't know what `2 + 2…

Google doesn't directly sell data in the first place - they leverage the data they have to improve the value of their ad network (in the form of enhanced targeting and attribution capabilities). It's actually in their best interest to _protect_ the data they have on you, as it's a primary competitive advantage they have over other ad networks.

As far as the unsavory interpretation of how they could conceivably use Fonts data to further that end: calls to download their fonts are another touchpoint with the Google ecosystem, and a theoretical vector for further tracking the browsing behavior and device graph of an individual.

That said, traditional font licensing for commercial use is absolutely bonkers[1][2][3]. Even if Google is using the data they collect from serving font files to feed into their user tracking, they've done a service to the web[4].

[1] https://designshack.net/articles/typography/what-is-a-font-license-and-do-i-need-one/

[2] Working at a creative agency, I learned that we can't so much as legally use a client-dictated (and licensed) font in a mockup without paying thousands of dollars for a license ourselves.

[3] Webfonts tend to be licensed on a per-pageview basis. One client got hit with a temporary flood of scraping/bot traffic, and the biggest economic impact was the unexpected six-figure font bill that month. We convinced them to put the site behind Cloudflare and used a Worker to strip out the font include for suspected bot traffic and…

A long time ago I did some googling (aka `research') on the subject and indeed I found out that using serif for printed documents is non negotiable ; it's supposed (and I agree with that) to let the eyes decrypt words faster and smoother than when reading sans serif. Oddly enough sans serif is easier to decipher on screens. I don't know yet which kind of fonts I should use on my e-reader though.

The web seems to think it's a matter of taste and adequacy nowadays:

http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/03/serif-vs-sans-the-final-battle/

http://designshack.net/articles/typography/serif-vs-sans-serif-fonts-is-one-really-better-than-the-other/

http://www.fonts.com/content/learning/fontology/level-1/type-anatomy/serif-vs-sans-for-text-in-print

> A Brief Look at Grid-Based Layouts in Web Design

Yes, most certainly "brief". Somehow the author managed to write the entire article without once showing an example of the HTML/CSS markup one would use to create a grid. Here's a bit more depth:

http://designshack.net/articles/css/rolling-your-own-grid-layouts-on-the-fly-without-a-framework/

It turns out that Microsoft has created their own vendor-specific version of grid CSS, all elements of which are prefixed with -ms- (as in -ms-grid). But I recommend that people avoid the vendor variations on the grid system, and I'm not the only one making this recommendation:

http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2010/03/css_vendor_pref.html

Hi Sergiotapia,

there are reviews:
MacAppStorm: http://mac.appstorm.net/reviews/web-dev-review/css-hat-turn-photoshop-layers-into-css3-code-with-a-click/

The Next Web: http://thenextweb.com/apps/2012/06/28/sweet-css-hat-turns-photoshop-layer-styles-into-css3-now-available-on-windows-and-mac/

Design Hack: http://designshack.net/articles/css/css-hat-a-magic-button-that-turns-photoshop-styles-into-css/

Or you can watch video review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZcukMGBeXCE

+ you can still read what CSS Hat users says about it on Twitter: https://twitter.com/search?q=%22csshat%22%20OR%20%22css%20hat%22&src=typd

Hope it helps in decision process :-)

I'm in the field (recent MA in art).

Colour theory, beyond the important concept of complementaries, is very unscientific. I'm not aware of any credible, rigorous scientific findings about colour and emotion that are actually used by artists. (I'm not saying that no credible research will ever exist: see links here https://designshack.net/articles/graphics/the-science-behind-color-and-emotion/ )

Painters (etc.) choose and apply colour in an intuitive way. Some artists are known as "colourists" for their skill in orchestrating colour effects. The way to learn is to look at that kind of work and absorb the aesthetic.