[TomAnthony]

This was fun. :)

I feel like there should be another scoring axis rather than just time. I think selector length would be wrong, but something like selector complexity, or how robust the selector is to updates.

I scored 3m 50s, but felt like some of my selectors were a bit 'dirty'.

[_Microft]

The timer encourages quick and dirty solutions. It took me a while to think of :is(input, button):not([disabled]) instead of a longer solution that I used at first. Another example was span[data-item] which is enough to mark exactly the required items at that level but I had found a longer, more specific selector for that first.

[chrismorgan]

> It took me a while to think of :is(input, button):not([disabled]) instead of a longer solution that I used at first.

The intended solution is just :enabled. This is where I think this project has failed badly in its stated goal to “improve your CSS knowledge”, because all it offers in that direction is a little hint link; to actually teach, it needs a set of proposed solutions, and at the end show you any where you differed.

Such a thing might also help suggesting just [data-item] instead of the needlessly-more-specific span[data-item]. And also whether :nth-child(2n+3) was the intended solution on one of them.

[jamiethompson]

I definitely "cheated" some of these by throwing in something horribly verbose rather than whatever a more correct solution would be

[Vinnl]

I felt dirty when I did something like

    #one, #three, #five, #six, #nine

(Or whatever the elements we had to select were.)