You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When a user hovers on the website/post thumbnail, the hover state should activate the link below as well. Underline it and blueberry. Same as if you were to only hover a link itself.
screenshot for reference
Or is there a rationale that makes this a bad approach?
They are two separate elements (blocks), screenshot and post title. They're also in separate containers, technically, so that the title + tags (soon to be categories) can be in a row below the title.
I thought about trying sibling selectors, but i think since they're separated by a few divs, that wouldn't work either.
I understand the motivation: it's the same link, why have two destinations? But to Kelly's point, this is non-trivial to implement. You could potentially explore a li:hover, but I think that might be misleading too. I personally think it's okay as-is.
When a user hovers on the website/post thumbnail, the hover state should activate the link below as well. Underline it and blueberry. Same as if you were to only hover a link itself.
screenshot for reference
![Screen Shot 2023-09-27 at 22 59 03](https://cdn.statically.io/img/private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/111751264/271114794-28038a5e-6f4f-49d3-87e4-4514657d9f72.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJnaXRodWIuY29tIiwiYXVkIjoicmF3LmdpdGh1YnVzZXJjb250ZW50LmNvbSIsImtleSI6ImtleTUiLCJleHAiOjE3MjI5NTAyODYsIm5iZiI6MTcyMjk0OTk4NiwicGF0aCI6Ii8xMTE3NTEyNjQvMjcxMTE0Nzk0LTI4MDM4YTVlLTZmNGYtNDlkMy04N2U0LTQ1MTQ2NTdkOWY3Mi5wbmc_WC1BbXotQWxnb3JpdGhtPUFXUzQtSE1BQy1TSEEyNTYmWC1BbXotQ3JlZGVudGlhbD1BS0lBVkNPRFlMU0E1M1BRSzRaQSUyRjIwMjQwODA2JTJGdXMtZWFzdC0xJTJGczMlMkZhd3M0X3JlcXVlc3QmWC1BbXotRGF0ZT0yMDI0MDgwNlQxMzEzMDZaJlgtQW16LUV4cGlyZXM9MzAwJlgtQW16LVNpZ25hdHVyZT1jNzk3NmU0OTk3NjU0NDQzYjlhOTA5MGY0YmUwMmFjYWY2MDE0MzkzMjgwMDBkOGM2YjhmMTI3ZTM3MTFlZTcxJlgtQW16LVNpZ25lZEhlYWRlcnM9aG9zdCZhY3Rvcl9pZD0wJmtleV9pZD0wJnJlcG9faWQ9MCJ9.JtNPochqFX0hvxziayC1kRLxevrOMgEOVdJU6hLUyDU)
Or is there a rationale that makes this a bad approach?
CC: @jasmussen
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: