conversionxl / aybolit

Lightweight web components library built with LitElement.
https://conversionxl.github.io/aybolit/
MIT License
7 stars 8 forks source link

feat(cxl-ui): center instructor image #406

Closed anoblet closed 2 months ago

anoblet commented 2 months ago

https://app.clickup.com/t/86b00z797

cxl com_institute_dashboard_

github-actions[bot] commented 2 months ago

size-limit report 📦

Path Size
packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/cxl-ui.js 74.41 KB (+0.02% 🔺)
packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/cxl-ui-jwplayer.js 11.89 KB (0%)
packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/cxl-ui-playbooks.js 30.98 KB (0%)
packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/vendor.js 140.5 KB (0%)
packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/cxl-ui-jwplayer.js, packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/cxl-ui-playbooks.js, packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/cxl-ui.js, packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/manifest.js, packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/unresolved.js, packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/vendor.js 258.93 KB (+0.01% 🔺)
pawelkmpt commented 2 months ago

@anoblet ping

anoblet commented 2 months ago

Although it may seem like more of a magic number, right: calc(27.5% - 200px); displays better across all sizes. The rational behind it was the middle ground between 1/4, and 1/3 minus half of the image width.

lkraav commented 2 months ago

Although it may seem like more of a magic number, right: calc(27.5% - 200px); displays better across all sizes. The rational behind it was the middle ground between 1/4, and 1/3 minus half of the image width.

What about the option of JS inline style calculations based on actual image size?

pawelkmpt commented 2 months ago

Although it may seem like more of a magic number, right: calc(27.5% - 200px); displays better across all sizes. The rational behind it was the middle ground between 1/4, and 1/3 minus half of the image width.

What about the option of JS inline style calculations based on actual image size?

It'd be perfect but this is suppose to be a quick task. We don't want to spend on it more than we already did. Proposed solution is going live.

lkraav commented 2 months ago

It'd be perfect but this is suppose to be a quick task. We don't want to spend on it more than we already did. Proposed solution is going live.

What exactly was spent here? Majority of the time it's been sitting waiting for review. This «giving up» style is a sure way to build into tech debt.