![]() Items will be laid out following either the main axis (from main-start to main-end) or the cross axis (from cross-start to cross-end). Please have a look at this figure from the specification, explaining the main idea behind the flex layout. If “regular” layout is based on both block and inline flow directions, the flex layout is based on “flex-flow directions”. Some of them are meant to be set on the container (parent element, known as “flex container”) whereas the others are meant to be set on the children (said “flex items”). Since flexbox is a whole module and not a single property, it involves a lot of things including its whole set of properties. Note: Flexbox layout is most appropriate to the components of an application, and small-scale layouts, while the Grid layout is intended for larger scale layouts. While those work well for pages, they lack flexibility (no pun intended) to support large or complex applications (especially when it comes to orientation changing, resizing, stretching, shrinking, etc.). Most importantly, the flexbox layout is direction-agnostic as opposed to the regular layouts (block which is vertically-based and inline which is horizontally-based). A flex container expands items to fill available free space or shrinks them to prevent overflow. The main idea behind the flex layout is to give the container the ability to alter its items’ width/height (and order) to best fill the available space (mostly to accommodate to all kind of display devices and screen sizes). Rather, professional autonomy was guaranteed through the collective community as well as the core values and mission embedded in the journalistic craft.The Flexbox Layout (Flexible Box) module ( a W3C Candidate Recommendation as of October 2017) aims at providing a more efficient way to lay out, align and distribute space among items in a container, even when their size is unknown and/or dynamic (thus the word “flex”). My findings show that shifting collectives of ‘we’ did not necessarily mean less individual autonomy. It is important to highlight is that it is not necessarily the digital ways of working in itself, but the way they create new forms of sociality and new ways of performing harmony and control, that contribute to reestablishment of boundaries. Since digital ways of performing journalism hold potential for fostering greater individualism as well as different forms of control, a protective ‘we’ for establishing internal trust, and an invasive ‘we’ in form of surveillance and control, affected each other in re-establishing hierarchy. There were no walls in the office landscape and the tools were not “walled off” either, but the journalists protected both the physical and digital spaces by cultivating invisible fences around their craft in both spaces. The openness, transparency, and accessibility of the physical open office landscape extended into the newsroom’s digital ‘landscape’ of their shared production platform. Based on one-year fieldwork in a small Norwegian newsroom, I display how the changing social interaction in a digitalized newsroom contributed to (re)establishing collectiveness and hierarchy in between news workers. News work has traditionally been highly hierarchical, even in a rather egalitarian work style of harmony and trust in a Norwegian context. This study shows how hierarchy had to be reestablished in the shared software where everyone could see each other’s work in ‘real time’ and control was moved into the journalists’ space for writing. Also, the social boundaries in between news workers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |