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.

> 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.

Thanks for your feedback! Just pushed an update to the project to show the solution which I thought of when creating the puzzle.

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

I felt dirty when I did something like

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

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

Same here, and to be honest I'm still not sure what the clean solution would be for this level. With that particular html structure and class/id usage there maybe isn't any…

The hint suggests doing it this way. This solution is clean but it isn't very elegant.

Exactly. All the previous questions had real, elegant answers. This one felt like whacking the mole was _possible_, but not the right way.