I updated it following the shorthand notation. I guess it still takes some time to get used to it, but at the moment I have mixed feelings about it: It is definitely cleaner and more organized than having the background images, sizes, and positions separated... but at the same time, I find it more difficult to follow, especially for people that may not be used to that notation (like me 😓).
Yes for sure it will be difficult if you are already used to the longhand one. You are not the only one by the way, Lynn also use that notation. I don't know how you can easily find the position or the size for each gradient .. It would take me forever to find the correct one 😖
Also, this made me remember one reason why I didn't do the shorthand notation more often: I don't know why, I would expect "image size / position" (or "image size position") instead of "image position / size" and it puts me off a little.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I updated it following the shorthand notation. I guess it still takes some time to get used to it, but at the moment I have mixed feelings about it: It is definitely cleaner and more organized than having the background images, sizes, and positions separated... but at the same time, I find it more difficult to follow, especially for people that may not be used to that notation (like me 😓).
Yes for sure it will be difficult if you are already used to the longhand one. You are not the only one by the way, Lynn also use that notation. I don't know how you can easily find the position or the size for each gradient .. It would take me forever to find the correct one 😖
Also, this made me remember one reason why I didn't do the shorthand notation more often: I don't know why, I would expect "image size / position" (or "image size position") instead of "image position / size" and it puts me off a little.