For example: I have an element which takes the full width of the viewport. I want its min-height to be half of its width, to get a ratio of 1:2.
On a 1600px wide desktop monitor the element's width would be about 1583px (monitor width minus scrollbar width), but its min-height would be 800px, because vw doesn't substract the scrollbar's width. So that would not be a 1:2 ratio.
An easy solution would be padding-top: 50%;, but if there's text within the element, that doesn't work. Alternative: a left floating pseudo element ::before with padding-top: 50%; would create the desired min-height in the ratio of 1:2, but that would be kinda hacky.
Am I missing something? Is there any clean way?
First thing you should do is include the following so the default padding and margins given by the web browser are removed:
* {
padding: 0;
margin: 0;
}
For the element you want to have 100vw and half height:
.half_height{
width: 100vw;
aspect-ratio: 2/1;
}
.container {
Width: calc(100vw - calc(100vw -100%));
Height: 50vh;
}
Related
For example, when you change the height of the browser while you're here on Stack Overflow, the content on the page doesn't change. However, if you visit my portfolio: http://seanrobenalt.com/ and change the browser height, some elements get scrunched up. Can't seem to figure out what's going on.
What's going on is that you've set the content as follows:
.header-logo {
background-color: rgba(229,229,229,0.4);
box-sizing: border-box;
display: block;
height: 10vh;
padding-top: 10px;
position: relative;
text-align: center;
width: 10vh;
}
Your height and width are set to height: 10vh; respectively width: 10vh;.
And what is vh short for? It's short for viewport-height andvh is a measurement unit, but unlike px it's not absolute.
Something that is 10px in height or width, will ALWAYS be 10px in height or width, no matter how you resize the window, because we're talking the static physical pixels on your screen.
vh, vw, or % on the other hand are relative units of measurement. Take % for instance. If you make a div, that is 100% in width – It will stretch the length of the entire parent element. And if the parent element is 100px wide, then the child element will be 100% of 100px which is.... 100px wide. if you set it to 50% of 100px – It's 50px wide.
So what happens if you set an element to 100vw? It can be simplest described as 100% of the entire browser width – or "Viewport".
So something that is 100vh will be 100% of view-height. (viewport height).
And your image is 10vh, which means, it will always be 10% of how high the browser window is. So if the browser is resized to be exactly 500px high – Your image will be 50px high.
What you need to do is set the size of the image in px for it always keep it's height and width.
I suggest you setup a little playground of a few divs, and start playing around with different measurement types.
Make a few divs that are using width: 100px; height: 200px; width: 100%; height: 100%; width: 100vw; height: 100vh; And place the divs in each other and see what happens.
Hope this helps.
You're calculating the layout of various elements on your page by using the vh (viewport height) unit. 100vh is equivalent to the height of your browser window at any given moment, so resizing the browser is doing exactly what it was coded to do.
Example element I see inspecting your site:
.full-hero {
background-color: #c7dbfc;
background-size: cover;
box-sizing: border-box;
height: 90vh;
padding-top: 10vh;
}
I just learned about a new and uncommon CSS unit. vh and vw measure the percentage of height and width of the viewport respectively.
I looked at this question from Stack Overflow, but it made the units look even more similar.
How does vw and vh unit works
The answer specifically says
vw and vh are a percentage of the window width and height,
respectively: 100vw is 100% of the width, 80vw is 80%, etc.
This seems like the exact same as the % unit, which is more common.
In Developer Tools, I tried changing the values from vw/vh to % and viceversa and got the same result.
Is there a difference between the two? If not, why were these new units introduced to CSS3?
100% can be 100% of the height of anything. For example, if I have a parent div that's 1000px tall, and a child div that is at 100% height, then that child div could theoretically be much taller than the height of the viewport, or much smaller than the height of the viewport, even though that div is set at 100% height.
If I instead make that child div set at 100vh, then it'll only fill up 100% of the height of the viewport, and not necessarily the parent div.
body,
html {
height: 100%;
}
.parent {
background: lightblue;
float: left;
height: 200px;
padding: 10px;
width: 50px;
}
.child {
background: pink;
height: 100%;
width: 100%;
}
.viewport-height {
background: gray;
float: right;
height: 100vh;
width: 50px;
}
<div class="parent">
<div class="child">
100% height
(parent is 200px)
</div>
</div>
<div class="viewport-height">
100vh height
</div>
I know the question is very old and #Josh Beam addressed the biggest difference, but there's still another one:
Suppose you have a <div>, direct child of <body> that you want filling the whole viewport, so you use width: 100vw; height: 100vh;. It all works just the same as width: 100%; height: 100vh; until you add more content and a vertical scrollbar shows up. Since the vw account for the scrollbar as part of the viewport, width: 100vw; will be slightly bigger than width: 100%;. This little difference ends up adding a horizontal scrollbar (required for the user to see that little extra width) and by consequence, the height would also be a little different on both cases.
That must be taken into consideration when deciding which one to use, even if the parent element size is the same as the document viewport size.
Example:
Using width:100vw;:
.fullviewport {
width: 100vw;
height: 100vh;
background-color: red;
}
.extracontent {
width: 100vw;
height: 20vh;
background-color: blue;
}
<html>
<body>
<div class="fullviewport"></div>
<div class="extracontent"></div>
</body>
</html>
Using width:100%;:
.fullviewport {
width: 100%;
height: 100vh;
background-color: red;
}
.extracontent {
width: 100%;
height: 20vh;
background-color: blue;
}
<html>
<body>
<div class="fullviewport"></div>
<div class="extracontent"></div>
</body>
</html>
A percentage of the full viewport width. 10vw will resolve to 10% of the current viewport width, or 48px on a phone that is 480px wide. The difference between % and vw is most similar to the difference between em and rem.
A % length is relative to local context (containing element) width, while a vw length is relative to the full width of the browser window.
Thank you for your answer and code example, #IanC. It helped me a lot. A clarification: I believe you meant "scrollbar" when you wrote "sidebar."
Here are some related discussions about viewport units counting scrollbars that I also found helpful:
Why does vw include the scrollbar as part of the viewport?
Using 100vw causes horizontal cropping when vertical scrollbars are present
Prevent 100vw from creating horizontal scroll
Difference between Width:100% and width:100vw?
The W3C spec for the vw, vh, vmin, vmax units (the "viewport percentage lengths") says "any scrollbars are assumed not to exist".
Apparently Firefox subtracts scrollbar width from 100vw, as #Nolonar's comment at Difference between Width:100% and width:100vw? observes, citing "Can I Use".
Can I Use, perhaps in tension with the spec (?), says all browsers other than Firefox currently "incorrectly" consider 100vw to be the entire page width including the vertical scroll bar.
the vw (view-width) and vh (view-height) units are relational to the view-port size, where 100vw or vh is 100% of the view-port's width/height.
For example,
if a view-port is 1600px wide, and you specify something as being 2vw, that will be the equivalent of 2% of the view-port width, or 32px.
% unit is always based on the parent element width of the current element
There is a difference that has not necessarily been raised. 100vw includes the width of the scrool bar, while 100% does not include it. It is a small difference, but important when doing design.
The difference between % and vw is most similar to the difference between em and rem. A % length is relative to local context (containing element) width, while a vw length is relative to the full width of the browser window.
is there any way to resize both width and height of a div in correlation with the browser resize using css? I have already achieved width resize but can't find how to resize the height in correlation.
Use viewport-percentage lengths:
5.1.2. Viewport-percentage lengths: the ‘vw’, ‘vh’, ‘vmin’, ‘vmax’ units
The viewport-percentage lengths are relative to the size of the initial containing block. When the height or width of the initial containing block is changed, they are scaled accordingly.
If you wanted to create a square that maintains an aspect ratio, you could use:
Example Here
.maintain-aspect-ratio {
width: 25%;
height: 25vw;
}
These lengths are supported in most modern browsers - support can be found here.
If you want an alternative with more browser support, you could always use the padding-top trick to maintain the aspect ratio.
Alternative Example
.maintain-aspect-ratio {
position: relative;
width: 25%;
background: red;
}
.maintain-aspect-ratio:before {
content: '';
display: block;
padding-top: 100%; /* 1:1 ratio */
}
This question already has answers here:
Maintain the aspect ratio of a div with CSS
(37 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
Im making a responsive design, which has to keep the proportions of its elements (height to width) no matter what the screen size is, so i don't know the size in pixels for any of the elements and i can work only in %.
I can set either the width or the height as a % of the browser size, but the i have no idea how to set the other property value.
That using only CSS, making JS calculate the values is not an option.
I came across this problem last year and found an obscure solution after some tedious researching. Unfortunately it involves wrapper DIVs. The structure is simple - you have a parent DIV which contains the contents container and another DIV that sets the proportions. You set the margin-top of the 'proportion' DIV as percent of the width of the parent... Example:
#parent {
position: relative;
}
.proportions {
margin-top: 75%; /* makes parent height to 75% of it's width (4:3) */
}
.container { /* contents container with 100% width and height of #parent */
position: absolute;
top: 0px;
left: 0px;
bottom: 0px;
right: 0px;
}
http://jsfiddle.net/twpTU/
Use CSS calc() https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/calc
It has pretty good adoption for modern browsers http://caniuse.com/calc as a fall back use CSS media queries and have min widths and heights to fall back on.
Obviously you could always just calculate both percentages in advance.
Div1 needs a height of 60% and the width needs to be 1/4th the height. 60% * .25 = width: 15%
div {
position: absolute;
border: 2px solid black
}
#div1 {
width: 40%;
height: calc(40% * 1.2);
}
#div2 {
width: calc(90% / 4);
height: 90%;
}
http://jsfiddle.net/pU4QA/
First, I know that the OP has clearly mentioned that he is not looking for any Javascript approach, however I think it might be useful for couple of people who are still open to use Javascript as well.
Here is the answer; To set the size for both width and height in the same percentage, you can set the width of the parent element to width: 100%; via CSS, then with Javascript you set the height of the parent to the size of width. Then you would have a square-shaped element as the parent.
Now you can apply both width: 10%; height: 10%; to the child elements. Then only things you need to do in order to keep it responsive is to listen for the window resize event and then you apply the height again only to the parent, and all children will be updated.
http://jsfiddle.net/sDzHb/
Something like this will keep it responsive to the browser size:
$(window)
.resize(function() {
var w = $(document).width();
$('.parent').height(w);
})
.trigger( 'resize' );
I am trying (if it is at all possible) to use css to make an image 100% the width of a fluid div, but as the images are square (and will be distorted if not square) I want to be able to match the height to the width... for fluid width I am using:
.img{
max-width: 100%;
width: 100%;
min-width: 400px;
}
which works fine for setting the width on all major browsers, but I just cant figure out how to match the height to the width :/
Try throwing in height:auto into your class.
.img{
max-width: 100%;
width: 100%;
min-width: 400px;
height: auto; // <-- add me
}
As mentioned in the comments though, most browsers should be adjusting and scaling the images correctly. But glad this could help.
Now, with CSS3 there is new units that are measured relative to the viewport, (browser window), if you want a fluid image with respect to the window this it works better in most use cases than "%". These are vh and vw, which measure viewport height and width, respectively.
.img{
max-width: 100vw;
width: 100vw;
min-width: 400px;
height: auto;
}