Naming convention for assets (images, css, js)?

Question

I am still struggling to find a good naming convention for assets like images, js and css files used in my web projects.

So, my current would be:

CSS:

Answer 1

I've noticed a lot of frontend developers are moving away from css and js in favor of styles and scripts because there is generally other stuff in there, such as .less, .styl, and .sass as well as, for some, .coffee. Fact is, using specific technology selections in your choice of folder organization is a bad idea even if everyone does it. I'll continue to use the standard I see from these highly respected developers:

• src/html
• src/images
• src/styles
• src/styles/fonts
• src/scripts

And their destination build equivalents, which are sometimes prefixed with dest depending on what they are building:

• ./
• images
• styles
• styles/fonts
• scripts

This allows those that want to put all files together (rather than breaking out a src directory) to keep that and keeps things clearly associated for those that do break out.

I actually go a bit futher and add

• scripts/before
• scripts/after

Which get smooshed into two main-before.min.js and main-after.min.js scripts, one for the header (with essential elements of normalize and modernizr that have to run early, for example) and after for last thing in the body since that javascript can wait. These are not intended for reading, much like Google's main page.

If there are scripts and style sheets that make sense to minify and leave linked alone because of a particular cache management approach that is taken care of in the build rules.

These days, if you are not using a build process of some kind, like gulp or grunt, you likely are not reaching most of the mobile-centric performance goals you should probably be considering.

Answer 2

For large sites where css might define a lot of background images, a file naming convention for those assets comes in really handy for making changes later on.

For example:

[component].[function-description].[filetype]

footer.bkg-image.png
footer.copyright-gradient.png

We have also discussed adding in the element type, but im not sure how helpful that is and could possibly be misleading for future required changes:

[component].[element]-[function-description].[filetype]
footer.div-bkg-image.png
footer.p-copyright-gradient.png

Answer 3

This is an old question, but still valid.

My current recommendation is to go with something in this lines:

• assets (or assets-web or assets-www); this one is intended for static content used by the client (browser)
  • data; some xml files and other stuff
  • fonts
  • images
  • media
  • styles
  • scripts
  • lib (or 3rd-party); this one is intended for code you don't make or modify, the libraries as you get them
  • lib-modded (or 3rd-party-modified); this one is intended for code you weren't expected to modify, but had to, like applying a workaround/fix in the meantime the library provider releases it
• inc (or assets-server or assets-local); this one is intended for content used server side, not to be used by the client, like libraries in languages like PHP or server scripts, like bash files
  • fonts
  • lib
  • lib-modded

I marked in bold the usual ones, the others are not usual content.

The reason for the main division, is in the future you can decide to server the web assets from a CDN or restrict client access to server assets, for security reasons.

Inside the lib directories i use to be descriptive about the libraries, for example

• lib
  • jquery.com
    • jQuery
      • vX.Y.Z
  • github
    • [path]
      • [library/project name]
        • vX.Y.Z (version)

so you can replace the library with a new one, without breaking the code, also allowing future code maintainers, including yourself, to find the library and update it or get support.

Also, feel free to organize the content inside according to its usage, so images/logos and images/icons are expected directories in some projects.

As a side note, the assets name is meaningful, not only meaning we have resources in there, but meaning the resources in there must be of value for the project and not dead weight.

Answer 4

The BBC have tons of standards relating web development.

Their standard is fairly simple for CSS files:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/technical/css.shtml

You might be able to find something useful on their main site:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/

Answer 5

First, I divide into folders: css, js, img.

Within css and js, I prefix files with the project name because your site may include js and css files which are components, this makes it clear where files are specific for your site, or relating to plugins.

css/mysite.main.css css/mysite.main.js

Other files might be like

js/jquery-1.6.1.js js/jquery.validate.js

Finally images are divided by their use.

• img/btn/submit.png a button
• img/lgo/mysite-logo.png a logo
• img/bkg/header.gif a background
• img/dcl/top-left-widget.jpg a decal element
• img/con/portait-of-something.jpg a content image

It's important to keep images organized since there can be over 100 and can easily get totally mixed together and confusingly-named.

Answer 6

I tend to avoid anything generic, such as what smdrager suggested. "mysite.main.css" doesn't mean anything at all.

What is "mysite"?? This one I'm working on? If so then obvious really, but it already has me thinking what it might be and if it is this obvious!

What is "Main"? The word "Main" has no definition outside the coders knowledge of what is within that css file.

While ok in certain scenarios, avoid names like "top" or "left" too: "top-nav.css" or "top-main-logo.png".
You might end up wanting to use the same thing elsewhere, and putting an image in a footer or within the main page content called "top-banner.png" is very confusing!

I don't see any issue with having a good number of stylesheets to allow for a decent naming convention to portray what css is within the given file.
How many depends entirely on the size of the site and what it's function(s) are, and how many different blocks are on the site.

I don't think you need to state "CSS" or "STYLE" in the css filenames at all, as the fact it's in "css" or "styles" folder and has an extension of .css and mainly as these files are only ever called in the <head> area, I know pretty clearly what they are.

That said, I do this with library, JS and config (etc) files. eg libSomeLibrary.php, or JSSomeScript.php. As PHP and JS files are included or used in various areas within other files, and having info of what the file's main purpose is within the name is useful.

eg: Seeing the filename require('libContactFormValidation.php'); is useful. I know it's a library file (lib) and from the name what it does.

For image folders, I usually have images/content-images/ and images/style-images/. I don't think there needs to be any further separation, but again it depends on the project.

Then each image will be named accordingly to what it is, and again I don't think there's any need for defining the file is an image within the file name. Sizes can be useful, especially for when images have different sizes.

site-logo-150x150.png
site-logo-35x35.png
shop-checkout-button-40x40.png
shop-remove-item-20x20.png
etc

---

A good rule to follow is: if a new developer came to the files, would they sit scratching their head for hours, or would they likely understand what things do and only need a little time researching (which is unavoidable)?

As anything like this, however, one of the most important rules to follow is simply constancy!
Make sure you follow the same logic and patterns thoughout all your naming conventions!
From simple css file names, to PHP library files to database table and column names.