Welcome to the Treehouse Community

Want to collaborate on code errors? Have bugs you need feedback on? Looking for an extra set of eyes on your latest project? Get support with fellow developers, designers, and programmers of all backgrounds and skill levels here with the Treehouse Community! While you're at it, check out some resources Treehouse students have shared here.

Looking to learn something new?

Treehouse offers a seven day free trial for new students. Get access to thousands of hours of content and join thousands of Treehouse students and alumni in the community today.

Start your free trial

CSS CSS Foundations Text, Fonts, and Lists Text Properties

Posted by Peter Varga
Peter Varga
2,442 Points

leading misleading??

I have rewatched the video and, although I am far from an expert (hence being here:) I believe that there is a mistake serious enough to point out here (have encountered many btw;).

What is referred to as "leading", as explained in the video, would actually be half-leading. Big difference. Double, so to speak.

At this point, regardless of my own future engagements with treehouse, I write this, while not being exactly happy about it, as feedback in hope of melioration [of the service] and perhaps more so, as a warning to fellow students.

Have searched around ["losing" an hour at least, that on its own sort of defeats the purpose of this kind of learning for me] only to find the concept as taught- false, motivated mostly by the already weakened credibility [of the lecturer and the team behind the content] from previous "slips" (some teaching in the color section for example is just plain wrong, and imply either the lack of understanding, or, less than optimal [pedagogical] streamlining), resulting effectively in 'learning something wrong' in a student that is less likely to question/ approach the knowledge served critically, that requires some background knowledge [to detect the mistakes] in the first place (and is not to be expected/ relied on, I'd say) let alone the effort needed and the subjective ability to do so.

Now, I do realize that the overall goal of the whole thing is an introduction and "beginner friendly" teaching (despite the "deep dive title and theme) but, please, do practice and show a little more quality control/ responsibility.

As previously mentioned this is not the first, and by my assessment of standards thus far, most probably not the last, purpose defeating and experience breaking mistake that I have found. I can only imagine how many I have not and, that alone, is alarming enough to me. Out of "OK, it happens" kind of rationalization, I have decided not to comment when [in the how to make a website series] the instructor, when (arguably "clumsily" and with, let's say, less than appropriate emphasis on the importance of the subject) attempts to explain the box model (for the first, and the last time, as if it were an insignificant detail) actually confuses the terms padding and margin, in the only chance [for a student] to "catch it".

But the elevator effect is amazing.

..

Thanks.

5 Answers

Ryan Field
PLUS
Ryan Field
Courses Plus Student 21,242 Points
Ryan Field
Ryan Field
Courses Plus Student 21,242 Points

In the world of online typography (with CSS in particular), leading refers to the total space added above and below the lines of text and its size is determined by the line-height property. Traditionally, leading was all added underneath the text (as you probably found in your research), but with CSS, the same space is added, only it is split half above and half below, so I don't believe this is as serious a mistake as you point out.

If you happen to find a mistake, by all means please send feedback using the link that is presented after all videos so that it can it can be looked at. I don't work for Treehouse, so I can't guarantee that everything will be looked at, but I'm sure it's appreciated.

As with any form of education, there will always be mistakes and inaccuracies as we are all human. It's a good idea to keep in mind, however, that as technology advances and we create new things, old terms will be adapted to fit new or reworked ideas and concepts, effectively expanding their meanings, as we can see with 'leading'. In a similar vein, there will always also be some disagreement as to what a particular term or idea should encompass. For a beginner, though, I think the definition of leading used by Guil in this video is probably accurate enough for the purpose of learning CSS and web development in general.

Guil Hernandez
Guil Hernandez
Treehouse Teacher
Guil Hernandez
Guil Hernandez
Treehouse Teacher

Thanks, Ryan Field.

That's true. In an industry (web dev) where a lot of your work involves fixing mistakes & inaccuracies / debugging, "We're all human" is the mantra we need to remember & embrace. :)

Ryan Field
PLUS
Ryan Field
Courses Plus Student 21,242 Points
Ryan Field
Ryan Field
Courses Plus Student 21,242 Points

Fair enough. I simply believe that leading (or half-leading) in CSS is similar enough to the concept used in print to warrant using the same term, and that Guil Hernandez's explanation is accurate regarding its implementation in CSS. It's an extremely similar concept: adding space between lines of text (to facilitate readability), and in fact, this is probably the reason it's called line-height in CSS instead of leading.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree, but I believe that in this particular case, the concept taught in this video is not at all detrimental to learning web development.

Guil Hernandez
STAFF
Guil Hernandez
Treehouse Teacher
Guil Hernandez
Guil Hernandez
Treehouse Teacher

Hey Peter Varga!

CSS Foundations is an older, semi-retired course that's been updated and replaced in our tracks by CSS Basics, CSS Selectors, and Web Typography.

As Ryan Field mentioned, the term 'leading' is not often used in web design—we simply refer to it as line-height. But, it is similar enough to the concept to mention it here for the purpose of learning CSS.

Guil

Peter Varga
Peter Varga
2,442 Points
Peter Varga
Peter Varga
2,442 Points

Hey Guil!

Thanks for Your response.

That said, regardless of Your [actual] communication, and whether and to what degree I may or may not agree or concur, the bottom line is that it [the subject of the OP, as covered in your lecture] is still wrong. And both the entire course and the mistake are still up, unchanged, semi retired or not. (My I ask what is the purpose of them not being "retired" in their entirety?? ;) And we could go on about how human we all are and what we ought to do to keep the universe in balance but, I see no direct action and/ or intent to fix the problem [nor an acknowledgment of it], the sole motivation for me when starting this thread. All the rest I label as fabrication, fluff, and of no relevance whatsoever.

So, to sum it up, as far as I am concerned, the "good enough" of a response [and I mean treehouse, as a whole, not only Guil] is not good enough.

Back to Guil: please, do not get me wrong, I have actually learned a lot from Your [other] lectures [the frequent fallacies and inconsistencies included, as a part of the process actually], and I am aware that it is not as simple as one might think that I think, judging from this "complaint" of mine alone. I actually "blame" You (in the "instructor" role that is) the least. That does not change the fact that I would prefer a more sincere (as in less political) answer if You did in fact decide to [granted that there is an element of choice] respond personally.

I would like to "balance" the whole issue emerging, with a statement "along the lines of" although I find this "school" as a whole of quality below certain standards, for myself to keep engaged with it, let alone recommend it, I do find Guil to be a "good teacher", and I'm stating this both as a subjective impression on a forum, with "no weight", as well as, if this [whole thing] is to be used, god forbid, as some basis of a review of any sort.

Never mind "me" though, there are many people that will run into this [the actual subject of the OP, if everyone is OK with "getting back to" that], in effect, disinformation and, falsely learn [it] because they will trust it to be true. I don't like telling people, as individuals, or in a more generalizing way, what should they do but, I would, admit [and address] the mistake and do whatever is in my power to correct it.

Cheers.

p

Peter Varga
Peter Varga
2,442 Points
Peter Varga
Peter Varga
2,442 Points

Yes, Ryan /skipping the pleasantries/ above and below, exactly. In total. btw, this "http://joshnh.com/2012/10/12/how-does-line-height-actually-work/" is probably "the best" that I have found in my [unwanted and unnecessary, if one enrolls a "school", defend it all You want] "research". That is what I mean, as opposed to how it is explained, and no, I cannot justify it with balancing the "beginner target" for, it would be pretty much equally "difficult" [for both explaining and understanding] to actually do It accurately. As for the "accurate enough", well, :D it's only 200% in effect and a key concept taught falsely, right? Aside from being totally unnecessary [the mistake and it's potential consequence].

Has very little to do with the "traditional" sense [of the term], apart from the name, and, I'm sorry but, for a subject as literal as the one at hand, all of the arguments stated have little to no water.

Thanks for Your attempt though, appreciated.

I do hope that a fix/ edit/ explanation/ apology/ whatever official statement will surface, for the sake of people who will use this service.

Had I not [and I am repeating myself here] embraced the "We're all human" thinking, I would have left an annoying comment under most of the content here.