This article was originally posted on my personal blog.
The :not()
CSS selector is a powerful addition to the pseudo-class toolbelt, allowing you to select elements that are omitted by its argument.
A basic :not() CSS Selector Example
Here’s an example. I have a few classes set up - one applies base styles for all buttons, one sets the styles of a primary button, and another determines what a primary disabled button should look like.
📢 I’m using SCSS in the example below to gain the benefit of class nesting and variables, but the application of the
:not()
selector is the same.
.button { border: none; padding: 1rem 2rem; border-radius: 0.5rem; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 1rem; } .button--primary { background: $button--primary; color: white; } .button--disabled { background: $button--disabled; cursor: auto; }
In order to align with accessibility, it’s important that the background of the button changes when in hover
state. That’s simple enough; here’s the change.
.button--primary:hover { background: $button-primary-hover; }
But, after adding the :hover
selector, we run into a problem. Try hovering over the disabled button and notice that the background changes as if we were hovering over an active primary button.
How do we get around this? The :not()
selector makes this an easy fix, allowing the change to only affect primary buttons that are not disabled!
.button--primary:hover:not(.button--disabled) { background: $button-primary-hover; }
📢 Instead of using a class to determine if the button is disabled, I could have opted to use the
:disabled
attribute. I think the examples above are a bit easier to follow.
Browser Compatibility for the :not Selector
Thankfully, the :not()
selector is supported by most major browsers.
Check out caniuse.com to see the exceptions.
Conclusion
In this article, we briefly discussed the :not()
selector and saw a real-world example. A variety of options open up when using this selector - what applications can you think of?
Top comments (7)
You have to admit that
which just applies the
:disabled
because it comes later at same specificity is nicer.Yep, absolutely. But as I mentioned in the article, I chose to forgo the disabled property to show a specific use-case for the selector. The nesting is also a plus with SCSS, but I opted against it to allow others to follow a little easier.
Love the suggestion, though :)
Agree 100% - in addition, the above code uses nesting and Sass
&
Good job 👍
Prompted by your comment, I wanted a reminder of what SCSS vs Sass syntax looks like, and the current example is literally a button with hover 😂🤣
Uh, I didn't really mean Sass.. I use "Sass" and "SCSS" interchangeably. Although I know it isn't :D
I gathered 😂
SASS is just cool indeed