Why is this a plugin? I'm likely only going to be using one of these types of captions, which I can write in about 5 lines of stylus. The rest of the options that you added to make this a 'real open source project' are then cruft.<p>EDIT: Sorry, not to denigrate your hard work, but I was burned early in my career by trying to use too many labor saving plugins. Later, I learned how to code correctly. I found that I could accomplish in 30 lines of js and 10 lines of css what I had previously downloaded a 500 line plugin for. I wondered why people found it necessary to build such bloated plugins, and realized that it probably stems from a desire to make a 'real, full-featured project'.
I built captionss.<p>This is my first legitimate open-source project, I would really appreciate any feedback and suggestions related to the project as well as the landing page (captionss.com).
Looks like some pretty solid CSS with one exception: you are changing font size and colors for the <i>default</i> figure tag. While it's not a common tag, it is used elsewhere. This may cause issues for some users, causing them to have to prefix your selectors.
Aww.... i thought the library decided for itself whether to use light captions or dark ones based on the image. Still pretty cool stuff!<p>Btw don't listen to the Nay-sayers. I am a programmer but my css sucks and i for one find this very very helpful.
I really wish the pages for projects like these would devote even a small section of their documentation to accessibility. I know it's not usually top of mind, and not everyone is bound by Sec508, but it is an oft-ignored best practice.<p>I'm not saying this is inaccessible - it looks like it would be okay at least as far as screen readers are concerned, though there may be color contrast issues depending on the image (here's an idea for a cool project - analyze the image and set a color on the caption that meets WCAG AA contrast ratios). It's just every time I see a some cool new css/js wizardry, the only way I can find out whether there's any accessibility compliance is to poke through the rendered markup, test out hover states, etc.
Looks simple and cool, thanks for sharing!<p>How does this support touch devices? Do they have to tap on the picture to see the caption, or does it show up automatically? I could see that being an issue if clicking on the image also brings up a full-size version of the image.
Looks very pretty, as does the semantic markup. Personally I'd prefer it if there was a little less alpha, e.g. on the Malta pic the text isn't so clear...
It'd help to include at least basic support for some older browsers -- there are still a decent number of users on IE8, for example, but you seem to support only 9+.