最终CSS调查的结果

A little over a month ago I launched what I hope will be an annual thing here at SitePoint: The Ultimate CSS Survey – a 3-part survey aimed at gathering info on the habits and preferences of CSS developers in the industry.

一个多月前，我在SitePoint上发布了我希望成为年度活动的内容： The Ultimate CSS Survey –一个分为三部分的调查，旨在收集有关CSS开发人员的习惯和偏好的信息。

Thanks to support from CSS-Tricks, Sidebar, and lots of others in the community, we were able to compile more than 6,800 entries in the three parts combined. Part one alone was filled out more than 3,400 times!

由于CSS-Tricks ， Sidebar以及社区中其他许多人的支持，我们在这三个部分中总共编译了6,800多个条目。 仅第一部分就完成了3,400多次！

Now that we’ve allowed some time to pass, we’re ready to have a look at the results. I’ve embedded the official Typeform results from each part on this page. Below each of the embedded results pages I’ve put together a bullet list of some of the most common and useful bits of feedback we received in the optional “feedback” question.

现在我们已经花了一些时间，我们准备看一下结果。 我已经在本页的每个部分中嵌入了官方的Typeform结果。 在每个嵌入式结果页面的下方，我整理了项目符号列表，列出了我们在可选的“反馈”问题中收到的一些最常见和最有用的反馈信息。

I know this was not a perfect survey, and some of the questions did not cover all bases so to speak – so we’ll definitely improve on that next year, thanks to the feedback we received.

我知道这不是一个完美的调查，可以说有些问题不能涵盖所有基础–因此，由于收到了反馈，我们一定会在明年有所改善。

结果：第1部分(技能和习惯) (The Results: Part 1 (Skills and Habits))

Use the up/down arrows to cycle through the survey results ↑

使用向上/向下箭头浏览调查结果↑

Before I get to reader feedback, I should point out that there was a huge misunderstanding in question #10. That question asked “For new projects, what is your current primary layout technique for a page’s basic structure?” A whopping 36% of participants said they use the Grid Layout Module (more than floats and flexbox!). This is incorrect. Grid Layout has awful browser support. Clearly, most people filling out the survey thought I was referring to some kind of framework-based grid system (like that found in Bootstrap). So chalk that one up to a poorly-worded question/answers, along with a lack of understanding of what exactly is Grid Layout. We’ll try to improve the wording on that one in the future.

在获得读者反馈之前，我应该指出，在问题10中存在巨大的误解。 该问题问“对于新项目，您当前页面基本结构的主要布局技术是什么？” 高达36％的参与者表示，他们使用了Grid Layout Module(网格布局模块)(超过float和flexbox！)。 这是不正确的。 网格布局具有强大的浏览器支持 。 显然，大多数填写调查表的人都认为我指的是某种基于框架的网格系统(例如Bootstrap中的系统)。 因此，用粉笔写出一个措辞不佳的问题/答案，以及对什么是Grid Layout缺乏理解。 我们将在以后尝试改进该措辞。

对第1部分的反馈 (Feedback on Part 1)

Here’s some of the feedback provided by participants who filled out part one:

以下是填写第一部分的参与者提供的一些反馈：

• For question #2 (“How would you describe yourself?”), many people pointed out that there should be an option for “full stack developer” or some other way to indicate that they do both front-end and back-end equally. We’ll definitely include that option in a future survey, but most of those developers probably picked “None of the above” so we can make a pretty decent guess about that.
  对于第2个问题(“您将如何描述自己？”)，许多人指出，应该有“全栈开发人员”选项或其他某种方式来表明他们在前端和后端都做得一样。 我们肯定会在将来的调查中包括该选项，但是大多数开发人员可能选择了“以上皆非”，因此我们可以对此做出相当不错的猜测。

• For question #23 on the use of !important declarations, many pointed out that they use !important only on single-purpose utility classes, or something similar. I’m guessing these developers chose “occasionally”, but it would probably be good to include that as an option in a future survey.

  对于使用!important声明的问题＃23，许多人指出他们仅在单用途实用程序类或类似的类上使用!important 。 我猜这些开发人员是“偶尔”选择的，但是将其作为将来的调查中的一个选项可能会很好。

• Many people pointed out that there should be more questions about Sass and preprocessors. Parts 2 and 3 included some more on this subject but a preprocessor survey is certainly a possibility in the future.
  许多人指出，应该对Sass和预处理器提出更多问题。 第2部分和第3部分包含更多有关此主题的内容，但是将来可能会进行预处理器调查。
• For the multiple-choice questions, participants wanted a “none” option. Some even claimed that Typeform didn’t allow them to submit the survey without choosing at least one. Those questions were optional and clearly marked as such, and I’ve tested this, so I’m not sure why they had trouble with that. There might be a Typeform bug in some browsers/platforms.
  对于多项选择题，参与者希望选择“无”选项。 有些人甚至声称Typeform不允许他们在未选择至少一项的情况下提交调查。 这些问题是可选的，并且已明确标记为此类，并且我已经对此进行了测试，因此我不确定他们为什么会遇到麻烦。 在某些浏览器/平台中可能存在Typeform错误。
• Many felt question #12 on CSS units did not cover their specific case. I was pretty much expecting this. It’s hard to cover every possibility with some of these questions.
  许多人认为关于CSS单元的问题＃12没有涵盖其具体情况。 我非常期待这个。 这些问题很难涵盖所有可能性。
• Some pointed out that the questions were biased towards freelance developers and agencies, thus many of the queries don’t cover developers who work continuously on a single app or project in a corporate environment. This is definitely something that we’ll correct in future surveys.
  有人指出，这些问题偏向于自由开发人员和代理商，因此，许多查询没有涵盖在企业环境中连续开发单个应用程序或项目的开发人员。 这绝对是我们在以后的调查中将纠正的问题。
• Question #20 (“How many CSS files do you typically create?”) should have taken frameworks into account, or else specified that this was only about custom CSS outside of framework files (modified or not).
  问题＃20(“您通常创建多少CSS文件？”)应该考虑框架，或者指定这仅涉及框架文件之外的自定义CSS(是否修改)。
• Many people pointed out that the three surveys gave them lots of new ideas for things to research and learn, so that’s great.
  许多人指出，这三项调查为他们提供了许多有关研究和学习事物的新想法，这太好了。
• Question #25 on lesser-used CSS units had a typo: the unit “ec” (which doesn’t exist) was supposed to be “ex” so the results are a bit skewed for that particular question.
  关于较少使用CSS单元的问题＃25有一个错字：单元“ ec”(不存在)应该是“ ex”，因此该结果对于该特定问题有些偏斜。

结果：第2部分(工具和工作流程) (The Results: Part 2 (Tools and Workflow))

Use the up/down arrows to cycle through the survey results ↑

使用向上/向下箭头浏览调查结果↑

对第2部分的反馈 (Feedback on Part 2)

Here’s some of the feedback provided by participants who filled out part two:

以下是填写第二部分的参与者提供的一些反馈：

• Question #6 on whether CSS should have been more like Sass in the beginning was too leading with its “no” answer.
  关于CSS是否一开始就应该更像Sass的问题＃6太过领先了，其答案是“否”。
• A few pointed out that some of the questions were far too broad in terms of time. For example, some have used CSS hacks, but not for a very long time.
  少数人指出，一些问题在时间上过于宽泛。 例如，有些人使用CSS骇客，但时间不长。
• One person pointed out that they use Bootstrap because they’re forced to at work, but not by choice. This might be something to include in a future survey.
  有人指出，他们之所以使用Bootstrap是因为他们被迫上班，但并非出于选择。 这可能是将来调查中要包括的内容。
• Question #16 about managing CSS via JavaScript was too black-and-white. Some feel it’s very appropriate in certain instances while not in others.
  关于通过JavaScript管理CSS的问题＃16太黑白了。 有些人认为这在某些情况下非常合适，而在其他情况下则不然。
• Some wanted to be notified via email when the results were posted. We’ll definitely do this in the future.
  结果发布后，一些人希望通过电子邮件收到通知。 将来我们一定会这样做。
• Question #7 on text editors should probably also include popular IDEs. Many people filled in the “other” option for this, mentioning tools like PHPStorm, Visual Studio, NetBeans, etc.
  关于文本编辑器的问题7可能还应该包括流行的IDE。 许多人为此填写了“其他”选项，提到了诸如PHPStorm，Visual Studio，NetBeans等工具。
• Questions #13 and #14 on filing CSS bugs should include an option for “I’ve never found a CSS bug” or something similar.
  有关提交CSS错误的问题＃13和＃14应该包含“我从未发现CSS错误”或类似选项。

结果：第3部分(标准与学习) (The Results: Part 3 (Standards and Learning))

Use the up/down arrows to cycle through the survey results ↑

使用向上/向下箭头浏览调查结果↑

对第3部分的反馈 (Feedback on Part 3)

Here’s some of the feedback provided by participants who filled out part three:

以下是填写第三部分的参与者提供的一些反馈：

• Question #1 (“Do you think the W3C should introduce a better technology to replace CSS?”) shouldn’t be a yes/no question. It might be best to include a “no opinion” type answer or similar.
  问题1(“您认为W3C是否应该引入更好的技术来替代CSS？”)不是一个是/不是问题。 最好包括“无意见”类型的答案或类似的答案。
• Questions #10 and #13 (favorite/influential sites/people) should probably allow multiple choices rather than forcing everyone to pick just one. Some people pointed out that they wanted to give credit to more than one.
  问题10和问题13(最喜欢的/有影响力的网站/人)应该允许多个选择，而不是强迫每个人只能选择一个。 有人指出，他们想给一个以上的人以荣誉。
• One person mentioned that a major part of their learning process is inspecting the code of other websites, and that this is more educational to them than any blog or book. This would be a good addition to a future survey.
  有人提到他们学习过程的主要部分是检查其他网站的代码，这比其他博客或书对他们而言更具教育意义。 这将是将来调查的一个很好的补充。
• A few people pointed out that developing CSS while working in a CMS is very different from what is implied by the questions in these three surveys. Might be something to try to incorporate in a future survey.
  少数人指出，在CMS中工作时开发CSS与这三个调查中的问题所隐含的含义大不相同。 可能会尝试纳入将来的调查中。
• For all three surveys, it might be useful to include a “does not apply to me” type answer for most, if not all, questions.
  对于所有三个调查，对于大多数(如果不是全部)问题，包括“不适用于我”类型的答案可能会很有用。
• A lot of people said they had never heard of any of the “influential” CSS people and many others felt it wasn’t important to vote on this.
  许多人说，他们从未听说过任何“有影响力”CSS人士，还有许多其他人认为对此进行投票并不重要。

结论 (Conclusion)

There’s much we could discuss regarding the survey results, and we’ll definitely be doing that in upcoming posts. In some cases we’ll commission tutorials specifically geared towards topics that people mentioned they’re having trouble with. In other cases, we’ll discuss the results directly in a more opinion-oriented manner.

关于调查结果，我们有很多可以讨论的地方，我们肯定会在以后的文章中进行讨论。 在某些情况下，我们将委托专门针对人们提到他们遇到问题的主题的教程。 在其他情况下，我们将以更注重观点的方式直接讨论结果。

In any case – what are your thoughts on the results? Is there anything you found surprising? Do you have any further suggestions for improvements for a future survey? Let us know in the comments.

无论如何，您对结果有何看法？ 有什么令人惊讶的地方吗？ 您对将来的调查有任何进一步的改进建议吗？ 让我们在评论中知道。

翻译自: https://www.sitepoint.com/results-ultimate-css-survey/