Hello everybody!
i don’t know how do you think about css, but i feel it ’ s so difficult.
althought, i spend a lot of time to read document about it, but i can’t.
Can you tell me about methods learn css?
thank you so much
What exactly are you having trouble with? What confuses you about it? Perhaps if you can give us an example of what you want to achieve or maybe what you are struggling to understand (as a code example) then we can perhaps help explain it for you.
Maybe it just isn’t for you and you need to find a different career path. Not everyone is suited for the industry they desire to be in. It is better to accept that sooner than latter if it is the case. That way you can stop wasting your time at something you will probably never be good at and instead find a career that suits you. I’m not necessarily saying that is the case but not everyone is suited for the career they want to be in.
tks so much <3
For beginners and people who have difficulty learning CSS, I find W3Schools the best, didactically speaking. You should learn by example and practical exercise, not by trying to dig through the documentation alone.
What really worked best for me was to browse forums like this one and tackle each thread. If I didn’t figure out the answer, I would then understand what the cause was, and the fix. I found it to be the best method for myself.
It is only difficult if you try to style the entire page at once.
If you start from the top left of the page and style one element at a time before moving on to the next then you only need to deal with small pieces of CSS at a time.
i visited website W3Schools and i feel it is good but i vague. i’m trying study. Thank you so much 
I don’t wanna discourage you, but if you find that vague, you should be asking yourself whether a career as a web designer is the right career for you. It doesn’t come any easier or any more concrete than W3Schools.
I wouldn’t recommend w3schools, as it is slow to update and can be incorrect, misleading or out of date.
I’d recommend getting a good book which will take you through the basics step-by-step in a logical order.
Baloney with pickles, mustard and mayonnaise.
The OP quite clearly needs another teaching method, one of practical exercise. Which W3 Schools offers in a step-by-step manner, in a logical order.
Agreed - that definitely describes much of W3Schools.
The two guys who created that site just tried to cover too many different subjects and there just aren’t enough hours in a day for the two of them to keep everything up to date.
They are updating it slowly - some of the JavaScript pages that used to show how to write JavaScript for Netscape browsers have recently been updated to replace the antiquated commands with more modern ones. The CSS pages are not quite as antiquated and so have probably been left until all of the far more antiquated pages on other topics are updated first.
And still no proof, while I have asked for that several times! Jealousy does strange things with people.
See w3Fools for a small sample of what proof is available. No one has time to document all of the ways that w3Schools is outdated - just the same way the two guys who built such an excellent site so many years ago just simply don’t have enough weeks available each day to keep it up to date.
Just because the two guys got lucky with their domain name is no reason to be jealous. It just makes it that much harder for sites that have kept up to date but didn’t grab such a misleading domain name from convincing people to update their code out of the stone age into the 21st Century.
The only site starting with W3 that is worth using is W3C which is the official standards site updated by hundreds of people and not a personal site belonging to two people.
W3fools.com contains exactly zero, zilch, not even a single example!
As you well know, or at least should know, the domain name of a website has nothing to do with the success whatsoever. That is all about good content and people linking to it because they find the content good.
The only thing ‘W3’ stands for is ‘www’. To which shortened name part they are fully entitled. They are not using ‘W3C’. Whose website is a great resource for technical information, but a drag when it comes to didactics. Absolutely unsuited for beginners like the OP.
[ot]http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_positioning.asp - explains different positioning methods, but without enough detail to alert a novice to the problems of trying to achieve a layout with absolute and relative positioning.
http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_float.asp - explains floats, but makes no mention of how to contain them. (Or even of the need to contain them.)
http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_links.asp - mentions target=“_blank”, but there’s no discussion of why/when it’s inappropriate to use it.
Plain definitions are fine for a reference, but not for a tutorial aimed at beginners, in my opinion. Hence I wouldn’t recommend anybody to use this as their primary source of learning.[/ot]
There are lots of better references around than the one at w3schools.
The Topics link at the top of all the forum pages is one such source (maintained by a lot more than two people and so far easier to keep up to date)…
In general: the examples you’re giving would qualify as omissions, not as “incorrect, misleading or out of date” as you wrote earlier. That’s a big difference. Also, we’re talking about an OP at beginners level, while your examples would be for intermediate-level students. Getting to deep into one subject makes beginners loose oversight.
The float page does explain how to clear floats, which is enough for beginners. The same principle counts for the positioning page, and most beginners are not entirely stupid – they will figure out matters for themselves, too. Furthermore, regarding target=_blank, that has been re-instated as valid HTML in HTML5. The rest is a matter of personal preference. Which you may call ‘appropriate’, that’s up to you, but it remains an entirely subjective matter.
Lastly, I would rather qualify W3 Schools as the opposite of “plain definitions”. The W3C site, that is one of plain definitions.
You’ll have to do much better than that, because I would qualify Sitepoint’s CSS beginners-level TOC page, at http://www.sitepoint.com/css/?level=beginner, as absolutely unsuited for beginners as well. Just have a look for yourself.
If you would have site that has the same didactic qualities as W3 Schools, for beginners, I will be all ears.