Today while enjoying some lasagna and listening to an intense technology debate amongst my fellow geeks at Posse, I sat and enjoyed your talk. There were three personal takeaways for myself that I’d like to share with you.

1. It made me realise that my comfort in limiting specificity with smarter classes was justified, although at times I felt judged because of my love for abstraction.

2. It gave me some great ideas on how to measure the effectiveness of the CSS I write, as well as being smarter with the libraries I have chosen to use. As I work in a startup, speed of delivery is paramount and as a result we’re using Blueprint CSS and jQuery UI for a large majority of our website, but revisiting these libraries and being smarter with the pieces that I use is now very high on my to-do list.

3. I want to work with people like you. If Yahoo! are ever looking for people who are passionate about CSS, HTML and jQuery – I hope you now know who to contact.

Thanks again!

I just watched your talk on the Webstock site for WS 11 (excellent talk by the way, as usual). The myth around “classitis” and that we shouldn’t add any classes that are not perfectly semantic I would agree has definitely been taken too far. In fact even the idea of “semantic classes” seems to be a complete myth that was derived from the idea of “a semantic web” but that was extended into a place that it was never intended – CSS. The slides from Nathan Smith’s talk on CSS Frameworks for Think Vitamin has really solidified this for me…I missed the actual talk, but the slides speak for themselves (slides 13-18): http://www.slideshare.net/nathansmith/think-vitamin-css

I’d be interested to know if this is where your head is at as well.