Although I’m relatively new to web development, MDN has been indispensable to advancing my knowledge! The tutorials and explanations provided both a reaffirming foundation and consistent growth, where other sites stopped at a shaky foundation.
I’ve gotten to the point where I think I am knowledgeable enough to be more independent. I’d like to start reading through MDN’s References as a supplement to the tutorials. However, I’m finding it difficult to confidently understand (parent) articles in their entirety and what are their relation to other (child) articles ( i.e. the element input - what are all its available properties & methods? ).
I specifically came across this when I was working on A first splash into JavaScript. I tried to learn everything i could about the input element, its properties and methods, and its relationship with the focus method from the References articles. When I reviewed the input article I could not find mention of the focus method. So I made a separate search for focus which only made mention of the input element in the example. Maybe this was a bad example as the input article is still not complete. Still What bothers me is that if it wasn’t for the tutorial utilizing and explaining the focus method I would have not learned it from the Reference articles on my own.
I’m positive that this problem is caused by my own inexperience and impatience, but I did wish I could have still just dived in. I don’t know if these are useful enough to consider creating, but if worth it i would love to see:
-
An introduction to the main Reference page explaining how to read through and generally interpret the articles
-
A how to read web docs for beginners. (I still can’t understand most library web docs on a basic reading level).
-
Consolidate articles that work for or within one another to strengthen foundational learning among beginners.
What do you think? Or have I just jumped the gun and need to go over more tutorials?
Edit: One more addition and a edited the last line