I am trying to get rid of the "Subscribe" header using CSS.
I inspect it and then I use the following code to remove it and it works fine:
#main-outlet.wrap .container .title-wrapper h1 {
display: none;
}
However, it so happens that other elements in my website use this same selector, so it removes them as well. In particular, it removes the titles of the topic discussions on my main page. But I don't know how to fix this because it seems that there isn't a more specific selector for the page with "subscribe" on it in particular. What am I missing?
You need to isolate your <h1> element.
I'm guessing you can't edit the HTML directly, otherwise you'd be able to add a unique class to the element.
You can do still isolate the element computationally via a short script.
There are many approaches, but here are two:
Approach 1
You can achieve the effect you need with two lines of javascript.
Javascript
const mainHeading = document.getElementsByTagName('h1')[0];
mainHeading.style.setProperty('opacity', 0);
Approach 2
Or, a little more sophisticated, with two lines of javascript and one line of CSS.
Javascript
const mainHeading = document.getElementsByTagName('h1')[0];
mainHeading.classList.add('subscribeMainHeading');
CSS
.subscribeMainHeading {
opacity: 0;
}
Related
I am using the Drupal ShareThis module. Unfortunately, a recent security release of this module has added a span in the generated code and it disrupts the layout of my page major. Everything was working fine before.
There is no option to control the generation of this code:
<span class="chicklets twitter"> </span>
Is it possible to remove/not display this span code via CSS? If yes how?
I tried:
.chicklets twitter {
display:none;
}
but no success. I am not a CSS expert. Thanks.
UPDATE
Here is a screen shot from FireBug:
I have been trying the suggested solutions:
span.chicklets {
display:none;
}
The above completely removes all ShareThis buttons (which can be explained by the following issue):
span.chicklets.twitter {
display:none;
}
The above removes the button, but the corresponding span still appears in FireBug as shadowed (see next).
Of course, I need to keep my button. What could cause this?
P.S.: Nevermind, I'll discuss this extra issue in another question if necessary.
If you want to set the style of an element with two classes specifically, combine them with no spaces. The dot notation means "class", so you would put a dot before each of them and concatenate them:
span.chicklets.twitter {
display: none;
}
As #AndrewBrock suggested, you can also just use one of the classes, as long as you know that the single class won't affect other span elements in an undesirable manner.
If you need the span to maintain the button, but don't want the span to take up space, then change it to this:
span.chicklets.twitter {
width: 0px;
}
chicklets and twitter are 2 separate classes. You only need to set the display:none in one of these.
span.chicklets {
display:none;
}
I have restricted this to only span elements with the class chicklets.
Note that this could affect other span elements which also have the chicklets class
If you have jQuery running this will do it (remove it versus hide it):
$(".chicklets.twitter").remove();
I was trying to put a image (logo) in the header element provided by HTML5 and I am curious if anyone knows if it is possible to declare a class in CSS something on the lines of header.image?
I tried header.image and it didn't seem to work, however as soon as I had the class named just .headerimage then it seem to be picking up the padding property I was trying to apply.
I'm doing some very basic learning as it's been sometime I picked up HTML code. Please help if your time permits. Thanks
I was trying to put a image (logo) in the header element provided by HTML5 and I am curious if anyone knows if it is possible to declare a class in CSS something on the lines of header.image?
I tried header.image and it didn't seem to work, however as soon as I had the class named just .headerimage then it seem to be picking up the padding property I was trying to apply.
I'm doing some very basic learning as it's been sometime I picked up HTML code. Please help if your time permits. Thanks
This is not the entire HTML/CSScode, but I could manage to take some screenshots. You guys helped me answer some questions and understand how period is not relevant to what I was trying to do.
Screenshot 1: https://skitch.com/android86/fm4r7/dreamweaver ( HTML design view) Screenshot 2: https://skitch.com/android86/fm4fd/dreamweaver ( CSS)
In the screenshot 1, I tried to have the links for website Contact and Login as a part of the Nav tag provided by html 5, however I wanted these to be horizontally next to the hgroup. I assigned a width to hgroup and now I have a lot of space to the right of hgroup however the nav is starting to line up horizontally, is this something I should handle with position or float property in CSS? I tried both in various combinations, I assigned a width to nav in order to fit in the area however it doesn't seems to be working. Any clue? The CSS code is in screenshot 2. After looking at the discussion here I thought using class might not be required instead rather parent child relation might be most relevant. I personally thought and read that one should use id's in CSS when it is a very unique scenario and class when we expect to use a certain thing very commonly, is this parent child relation a way of declaring a class? Thanks everyone.
In CSS, a period without spaces like this.thing means:
select elements that have the class thing but only if they are of type this
Period (.) is a special character in CSS, so you can't name classes with periods. Try an _ or a -.
Actually you can't use period in class names, because it is a class selector. For example, is you have a class "foo" applied to some html element, you can style this element in css linking to it as ".foo".
Example HTML:
<header class="foo">
<img class="bar" src="some/path/here">
Some content here
</header>
Example CSS:
.foo { color: #AAA; }
or
header.foo { color: #AAA; }
In first CSS example the style will be applyed to all elements, wich have class "foo". In the second - to all elements, wich have class "foo" and same time are of "header" type.
Returning to your case, I think the only aim is to apply style to image inside of header element. It can be done different ways:
Use the image class
.bar { width: 100px; }
or more concretely
img.bar { width: 100px; }
Use parent-child relations
header img { width: 100px; }
above will apply styles wich lay inside the header element or in its
children elements
header>img { width: 100px; }
this will be ok only for the direct child of header.
Combine two approaches.
If you know for shure that there will be only one image in header element, I can recommend the approach with ">". Read more about different css selectors, ids and classes. It will do the job.
Assuming your markup looks like this:
<header><img /></header>
The selector you want would be this:
header img {...}
If you really did class your image with class="image" (kinda redundant), then you'd want:
header .image {...} /* note space */
This assumes that the browser supports the html header element. If it doesn't, you'd want to use something like html5shim 1 or modernizer 2
I always was told to take out multiple properties in your css that you use more then once, and add them all in one rule. Like below. (please excuse the poor example)
I always seen this:
.button, .list, .items { color: #444; }
With multiple rules, can't that leave a lot of clutter?
Only in css tutorials and examples Ive seen this:
.someColor { color: #444; }
And in the css, just add another class of '.sameColor'. (div class="button someColor")
I've never seen this and feels like it would leave less clutter in your CSS. Would this be okay? Or do you think it could leave with more clutter in your HTML ?
Try to name your classes independently of their visual effect. It is a nature of CSS to play with the design and layout without having to change the HTML. Class names such as .someColor or .left-sidebar are a bad practice. Colors and position can change.
And also apply rules to semantic HTML elements rather than adding classes on all different divs and spans. It should be obvious, although many people get this wrong.
CSS is a limited set of rules and that makes it a perfect creativity stimulator.
It's all based on personal preference. I've tried both methods and prefer the second method you listed, except with more generic class names such as middleParagraph or headerGraphic so it applies to an area rather than a specific color because colors can change.
Good classnames and IDs are the first place you should optimize. THEN move onto multiple class names.
Multiple classnames can help out quite a bit though, consider:
<div class="leftColumn">Left</div>
<div class="rightColumn">Right</div>
<div class="middleColumn hasLeft hasRight">I have padding-left of 210px and padding-right of 210px</div>
<!-- alternatively, you could have -->
<div class="rightColumn">Right</div>
<div class="middleColumn hasRignt">I have padding right of 210px</div>
<!-- or -->
<div class="leftColumn">Left</div>
<div class="middleColumn hasLeft">I have padding left of 210px</div>
<!-- or -->
<div class="middleColumn">I have no padding</div>
and your css
.leftColumn { width:200px; float:left; }
.rightColumn { width:200px; float:right; }
.middleColumn.hasLeft { padding-left:210px; }
.middleColumn.hasRight { padding-right:210px; }
The result is floated right/left columns and the center area compensates for them with padding. This means you can style your middleColumn how you want to (e.g. .middleColumn .otherCoolSelector ).
It's perfectly acceptable to apply multiple classes to HTML elements. The trick is to be judicious; I usually find that when I do this, the additional classes are additions or exceptions to the basic styling being applied. For example, here are some classes I occasionally add to an element that already has a class:
error -- to style the current element if the user entered invalid data
first -- to style the first element in a list or in a table row, e.g. to suppress padding-left
last -- to style the final element in a list or in a table row, e.g. to suppress margin-right
even -- to apply zebra-striping to alternate elements
hidden -- to hide an element if it's not currently relevant
These extra classes are typically generated dynamically with a server-side language like ASP.NET or PHP. They can also be added or removed on the client side with JavaScript, esp. with a library like jQuery. This is especially useful to show or hide elements in response to an event.
There are a lot of good answers here. The trick is finding out which one fits your situation best.
One thing to consider is your markup size. In a high-traffic situation, your markup size is critical to the speed of your page loads...every byte counts. If this is the case for you, then you may want to create more CSS classes and put less in your markup. That way, the client is caching more and your website is serving up less.
What you're suggesting is a bit like an in-line style, e.g. style="color:#444". So if you want to change the color of your element you'd have to make a change to the html, which means you've defined style as part of your content. Which is exactly what css is supposed to avoid.
Imagine if you'd included 'someColor,' multiple times across multiple html files and you decide some of these elements shouldn't have 'someColor,' after all, you've got a lot of files to go through.
I'd probably avoid the list option too, if I'm making a component, say a button, I want to find .mybutton class in my css file and see all the rules for that component, without having to go through all sorts of unhelpful global classes. Also if someone comes along and changes the color in our global class he may break my button, where as if the button controlled it's own styles it can't be broken in this way.
I have a page that looks like: <div id="header">...</div><div id="navigation">...</div> similar for body and footer.
I'd like to use a grid system to style the page, all of which seem to rely on giving the divs mentioned a class based on their presentation. But I don't want to do this (and can't because of the way the markup is generated)
Is there a way to do this, without just putting a class on the divs? I could copy the details of the class desired to a stylesheet mentioning the divs by id, but that feels wrong.
Edit to clarify:
The OP wants to avoid adding class="grid_3" etc. to the HTML, but also doesn't want to add #header { width: 960px; margin: 0px; } (which I think is okay) – Rory Fitzpatrick 3 hours ago
Exactly, I don't want to put presentation information in my HTML, but I hoped I wouldn't have to just take the css classes that make up the grid system apart, and apply the relevant parts (like margin:0px and width:960px), since that is bad from a maintenance and reuse angle.
So, I'll look at an automated system for doing what I need, unless there is an answer to how do you apply a css class to an HTML element, using css, without adding class="blah" to that element? Because that doesn't seem like a crazy thing to want to do to me.
Well if you use blueprint-css as your grid system you can use the compress.rb to assign the rules for given bp framework classes to a specific selector of your choice like #footer or what have you. for example in your project yaml you could have:
semantic_styles: # i dont think this is the right key definition but you get the idea
'#footer,#navigation': ['span-12','clearfix']
'#footer': ['push-1']
# etc...
Then when you call compress.rb on the project file it will roll up the necessary declaration from the array of selectors on the right into the selector on the left producing:
#footer,#navigation{ /* composite delcalrations from .span-12 and .clearfix */}
#footer {/* declarations from .push-1 */}
But all in all this is essential an automation of copying the declarations to a separate file that you say seems "wrong". But i mean other than doing this (automated or manually) i dont see what the possible options could be.
I'm not sure I understand the question. Why don't you want to put styles in a stylesheet and reference them by id?
#header{
position:relative;
...
}
I have the same reservations about grid systems, adding class names just goes against separating markup and style (but is often sacrificed for productivity).
However, I don't see what's wrong with setting the right column widths and margins using your own CSS. You could have a specific site.grid.css file that contains only selectors and widths/margins for the grid. I think this is perfectly okay, it's just a way of using CSS like variables. For instance, all 3-column elements would appear under
/* 3-column elements, width 301px */
#sidebar, #foobar, #content .aside {
width: 301px;
}
Then rather than adding class="grid_3" to your HTML, you just add the selector to the CSS.
You might want to consider using the class names initially, until you're happy with the layout, then convert it into CSS selectors. Whichever works best for your workflow.
If you don't have access to the markup you must either copy the styles, referencing the ids, or maybe you can apply the class to the ids using javascript?
I am finding it useful to define 'marker' css styles such as 'hidden' or 'selected' so I can easily mark something as hidden or selected - especially when using a tag based technology like ASP.NET MVC or PHP.
.hidden
{
display:none;
}
.newsItemList li.selected
{
background-color: yellow;
}
I don't especially feel like reinventing the wheel here and wanted to know what other things like this are useful or common - or if there are any pitfalls to watch out for.
Should I look at any specific css frameworks for other things like this? Plus is there a name for this type of css class that I can search by.
I agree with the other posters who say only to define what you need, rather than bloating your code with a bunch of unnecessary classes.
That being said, I find myself using the following on a constant basis:
.accessibility - visually hide elements, but keep them intact for screenreaders and print stylesheets
.clear - tied to Easy Clearing
.first-child and .last-child - easily assign styles to the first/last item in a container. This has been a lifesaver many times, and I prefer it over the poorly-supported :pseudo selectors
.replace - tied to Phark IR for transparent image replacement
Finally, I dynamically assign .js to the <html> element with
<script type="text/javascript">if(h=document.documentElement)h.className+=" js"</script>
This will allow me to define .js (rest of selector) styles to target only browsers with JavaScript enabled.
Let me give you an answer from a very novice web developer who has recently considered using CSS classes as "markers". Please don't take this as a definitive answer, as I may be completely wrong, but look at it as another point of view.
I was going to use some marker classes, too. I created one called .center to center the elements in a DIV tag. However, I was struck with the idea that I'm looking at CSS all wrong. I reasoned that CSS is supposed to define how an element is to be displayed without having to change the HTML page. By using marker classes, like .center for example, I would have to change BOTH the CSS and HTML if I wanted that DIV tag to be right-justified next month. So instead, I created a .latestHeader class (the DIV is to hold the "latest information" such as a news item), and in that class I set the text to align center. Now, when I want to change the justification of the text, I simply change the CSS for that DIV and I don't have to touch the HTML.
In regards to your question about CSS frameworks...
Personally I've always found the W3C has the most complex but also most accurate answer to any CSS question.
After many years of programming and playing around with CSS/HTML/PHP I agree with the above comment.
There is no harm in defining a marker for something to be centered or right-aligned using something along the lines of a '.center' or '.righths', but keep in mind as above that if you want to change a whole slab of text your work will be increased because you have to edit both CSS and HTML.
Defining the format for a whole section will mostly likely work out more logical, because if you want to change the section months down the trail, you just have to edit the format of one CSS declaration as opposed to editing each individual article.
CSS was however designed as the ultimate styling language which could allow an administrator to make a website look exactly what they want it to. Keep in mind though that excess CSS will increase the load on a server, will increase the time before your client sees your page and in line with the 'feng shui of web design' it is possible to go overboard with too much styling.
You should really grow this list on a need basis instead of soliciting a list of generic classes across the board--you'll only end up with bloat. If you want to avoid reinventing the wheel the look into some CSS frameworks (blueprint or 960). In some respect, generic classes like .center { text-align:center } do have some level of redundancy but often times they're needed. For example the following pattern which is all too common but should be avoided:
element.onclick(function(e){ this.style.backgroundColor = 'yellow' }
That's bad because you really ought to be using:
element.onclick(function(e){ this.className = 'highlight' }
The latter allows you to modify your styles by only touching the CSS files. But if a CSS class name has only one style element then you should probably avoid it because it doesn't make any sense to have it (.hidden in your example) and call it directly instead:
element.onclick(function(e){ this.display = 'hidden}
I often find myself keeping two classes in all of my stylesheets: "center" (which simply applies text-align: center;, and a float-clearing class that applies clear:both;.
I've considered adding a "reset" statement to all my styles, but haven't had a need for it yet. The reset statement would be something similar to this:
*
{
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
}
I reuse these often enough to include them in just about everything. They're small enough so I don't feel they bloat the code at all.