I've got a issue related with position and height auto - css

I've made responsible web slide img with 3 parts of div, give them(.slide_centent) position absolute and the parent(.slides) position relative, after that the parent(.slides) doesn't have height anymore. i give it px,% height but when i reduce browser only div(.slide_centent) become reduce together with images, parent(.slides)' bottom fixed at the point, it make huge black which not look so good. any ideas?
here is HTML
<section class="slides">
<div class="slide_centent">
<img src="images/images1.jpg" alt="images1">
<button class="slidesbtn1">자세히 보기</button>
</div>
<div class="slide_centent">
<img src="images/images2.jpg" alt="images2">
<button class="slidesbtn2">자세히 보기</button>
</div>
<div class="slide_centent">
<img src="images/images3.jpg" alt="images3">
<button class="slidesbtn3">자세히 보기</button>
</div>
</section>
Here is CSS
section.slides {
width: 100%;
height: auto;
position: relative;
}
section .slide_centent{
width: 100%;
position: absolute;
transition: all 3s;
}
section .slide_centent img{
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
min-width: 1500px;}

When you add position absolute to an element, you remove it from the flow of the page, so other elements are 'unaware' of its presence. In your case, the 'slides' won't know about the 'slides_centent' (because 'slides_ceneten' is out of the flow of the page), and can't keep the height of children.
I think it would be better to try to avoid position absolute in this case, but there are some things you could try.
Take a look here: Make absolute positioned div expand parent div height

Related

CSS position: absolute; and inset: 0; has zero effect on image element [duplicate]

Whilst trying to make an image fit into a rectangle, I came across a weird problem and wondered if anyone knew why these three ways of using object fit act differently:
.container {
width: 250px;
padding-top: 20%;
border: 1px solid red;
position: relative;
display:inline-block
}
.container>img {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
object-fit: contain;
object-position: center center;
}
.image {
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
}
.image-1 {
right: 0;
bottom: 0;
}
.image-2 {
right: 0;
bottom: 0;
max-height: 100%;
max-width: 100%;
}
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/200/300" class="image">
</div>
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/200/300" class="image-1">
</div>
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/200/300" class="image-2">
</div>
As you can see from the first image - everything works fine with a width and height. In the second image, I try to set the image so it fills the space with absolute positioning instead of width and height, but this is totally ignored and the image just overflows or stays it's original size.
To fix this, I use a max-width and height on the third image, but then this totally ignores the object-position and doesn't grow to a width or height larger than itself.
Why does object fit only work with a declared width and height and not if the image is just taking up space with coordinates and why does object-position not work with max-width and height?
The image is a replaced element so the use of top/left/right/bottom will not work like it will do with a non-replaced element (a simple div for example). Here is the relevant parts from the specification:
https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#abs-replaced-width
https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#abs-replaced-height
To make it easier the computed height/width of your image aren't defined by the top/bottom and right/left values but it's using the default one of the image thus there is no ratio distortion and object-fit will do nothing.
Use different value for bottom/right and you will see that they are ignored:
.container {
width: 250px;
padding-top: 20%;
border: 1px solid red;
position: relative;
display:inline-block
}
.container>img {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
object-fit: contain;
object-position: center center;
}
.image-1 {
right: 0;
bottom: 0;
}
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/100/200" class="image-1" >
</div>
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/100/200" class="image-1" style="right:100px;bottom:10000px">
</div>
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/100/200" class="image-1" style="right:-10px;bottom:-10000px">
</div>
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/100/200" class="image-1" style="right:-100px;bottom:50%">
</div>
Basically the top/left are simply adjusting the position and the intrinsic size of the image are used. If you explicitely specify the width/height or you add max-width/max-height constraint then you will be able to change the computed height/width like you already did.
Related question where the same happen with an input element: Width of absolute positioned input doesn't follow CSS rules
In your situation object-fit is only working for the first case where we have ratio distortion since you set height:100% and width:100%. Nothing will happen on the second case (like explained above) and also for the third case since you simply defined max-height/max-width thus the image will simply follow this constraint and will try to keep it's initial ratio.
In other words, object-fit will only work if you change the width AND the height AND this change break the initial ratio. Changing only one of them or none of them make the use of object-fit useless.
Related questions:
CSS object-fit: contain; is keeping original image width in layout
How does object-fit work with canvas element?

Why absolutely positioned img cannot be auto stretched? [duplicate]

Whilst trying to make an image fit into a rectangle, I came across a weird problem and wondered if anyone knew why these three ways of using object fit act differently:
.container {
width: 250px;
padding-top: 20%;
border: 1px solid red;
position: relative;
display:inline-block
}
.container>img {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
object-fit: contain;
object-position: center center;
}
.image {
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
}
.image-1 {
right: 0;
bottom: 0;
}
.image-2 {
right: 0;
bottom: 0;
max-height: 100%;
max-width: 100%;
}
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/200/300" class="image">
</div>
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/200/300" class="image-1">
</div>
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/200/300" class="image-2">
</div>
As you can see from the first image - everything works fine with a width and height. In the second image, I try to set the image so it fills the space with absolute positioning instead of width and height, but this is totally ignored and the image just overflows or stays it's original size.
To fix this, I use a max-width and height on the third image, but then this totally ignores the object-position and doesn't grow to a width or height larger than itself.
Why does object fit only work with a declared width and height and not if the image is just taking up space with coordinates and why does object-position not work with max-width and height?
The image is a replaced element so the use of top/left/right/bottom will not work like it will do with a non-replaced element (a simple div for example). Here is the relevant parts from the specification:
https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#abs-replaced-width
https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#abs-replaced-height
To make it easier the computed height/width of your image aren't defined by the top/bottom and right/left values but it's using the default one of the image thus there is no ratio distortion and object-fit will do nothing.
Use different value for bottom/right and you will see that they are ignored:
.container {
width: 250px;
padding-top: 20%;
border: 1px solid red;
position: relative;
display:inline-block
}
.container>img {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
object-fit: contain;
object-position: center center;
}
.image-1 {
right: 0;
bottom: 0;
}
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/100/200" class="image-1" >
</div>
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/100/200" class="image-1" style="right:100px;bottom:10000px">
</div>
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/100/200" class="image-1" style="right:-10px;bottom:-10000px">
</div>
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/100/200" class="image-1" style="right:-100px;bottom:50%">
</div>
Basically the top/left are simply adjusting the position and the intrinsic size of the image are used. If you explicitely specify the width/height or you add max-width/max-height constraint then you will be able to change the computed height/width like you already did.
Related question where the same happen with an input element: Width of absolute positioned input doesn't follow CSS rules
In your situation object-fit is only working for the first case where we have ratio distortion since you set height:100% and width:100%. Nothing will happen on the second case (like explained above) and also for the third case since you simply defined max-height/max-width thus the image will simply follow this constraint and will try to keep it's initial ratio.
In other words, object-fit will only work if you change the width AND the height AND this change break the initial ratio. Changing only one of them or none of them make the use of object-fit useless.
Related questions:
CSS object-fit: contain; is keeping original image width in layout
How does object-fit work with canvas element?

object-fit, object-positioning and absolute positioning

Whilst trying to make an image fit into a rectangle, I came across a weird problem and wondered if anyone knew why these three ways of using object fit act differently:
.container {
width: 250px;
padding-top: 20%;
border: 1px solid red;
position: relative;
display:inline-block
}
.container>img {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
object-fit: contain;
object-position: center center;
}
.image {
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
}
.image-1 {
right: 0;
bottom: 0;
}
.image-2 {
right: 0;
bottom: 0;
max-height: 100%;
max-width: 100%;
}
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/200/300" class="image">
</div>
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/200/300" class="image-1">
</div>
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/200/300" class="image-2">
</div>
As you can see from the first image - everything works fine with a width and height. In the second image, I try to set the image so it fills the space with absolute positioning instead of width and height, but this is totally ignored and the image just overflows or stays it's original size.
To fix this, I use a max-width and height on the third image, but then this totally ignores the object-position and doesn't grow to a width or height larger than itself.
Why does object fit only work with a declared width and height and not if the image is just taking up space with coordinates and why does object-position not work with max-width and height?
The image is a replaced element so the use of top/left/right/bottom will not work like it will do with a non-replaced element (a simple div for example). Here is the relevant parts from the specification:
https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#abs-replaced-width
https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#abs-replaced-height
To make it easier the computed height/width of your image aren't defined by the top/bottom and right/left values but it's using the default one of the image thus there is no ratio distortion and object-fit will do nothing.
Use different value for bottom/right and you will see that they are ignored:
.container {
width: 250px;
padding-top: 20%;
border: 1px solid red;
position: relative;
display:inline-block
}
.container>img {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
object-fit: contain;
object-position: center center;
}
.image-1 {
right: 0;
bottom: 0;
}
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/100/200" class="image-1" >
</div>
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/100/200" class="image-1" style="right:100px;bottom:10000px">
</div>
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/100/200" class="image-1" style="right:-10px;bottom:-10000px">
</div>
<div class="container">
<img src="https://www.fillmurray.com/100/200" class="image-1" style="right:-100px;bottom:50%">
</div>
Basically the top/left are simply adjusting the position and the intrinsic size of the image are used. If you explicitely specify the width/height or you add max-width/max-height constraint then you will be able to change the computed height/width like you already did.
Related question where the same happen with an input element: Width of absolute positioned input doesn't follow CSS rules
In your situation object-fit is only working for the first case where we have ratio distortion since you set height:100% and width:100%. Nothing will happen on the second case (like explained above) and also for the third case since you simply defined max-height/max-width thus the image will simply follow this constraint and will try to keep it's initial ratio.
In other words, object-fit will only work if you change the width AND the height AND this change break the initial ratio. Changing only one of them or none of them make the use of object-fit useless.
Related questions:
CSS object-fit: contain; is keeping original image width in layout
How does object-fit work with canvas element?

css text on the image

I have an image which has to take full width. And I need to put a text and a button on top of it in a specific place. I looked over many topics but can not figure out how to make it fully responsive.
<div class"wrapper">
<div class="image-box">
<img src="x">
</div>
<div class="content-box">
<h1>text goes there</h1>
<a>anchor tag goes there</a>
</div>
</div>
so this is the layout but it can be changed if it gets me to the point I need.
If I understand correctly the parent div called wrapper should be set to position: relative and all the child divs to position: absolute, after that you just position all these child elements with top, left, right, bottom. So after testing this this is what I get. Since the image is always 100% of the viewport it gets smaller and smaller by height and width because of its aspect ratio. The text and button on the image just stays at a fixed place and after some point it goes out of the image.
Whats my mistake?
P.S found a lot of topics but still, I am messing something up. Thank you for your insights and help.
The image tag is used to create a separate element on the page. This is not really what you want... you want the content-box to have a background, right? Rather than using the image tag, use CSS to apply a background image.
here is a jsfiddle
.content-box {
/* set width and height to match your image */
/* if these are omitted, it will only be as big as your content, */
/* and only show that much of your image */
width: 200px;
height: 300px;
/* obviously, replace this with your image */
background:url('http://placecage.com/200/300');
}
<div class"wrapper">
<div class="content-box">
<h1>text goes there</h1>
<a>anchor tag goes there</a>
</div>
</div>
I think this is what you want. Also, this is a good occasion to use those HTML5 tags figure
and figcaption, but basically all you need is this kind of structure:
<div class="wrapper">
<img />
<div class="content-box">
<!-- Your content here -->
</div>
</div>
So what is happening here is that your wrapper's dimensions are fixed by the image, and then you position absolutely your content-box or the elements within. If you do not want to position them at the very top or bottom of your image, just use percentage values when positionning:
top: 10%;
figure {
position: relative;
}
figure img {
width: 100%;
height: auto;
}
figure figcaption {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
right: 0;
margin: 0;
background: rgba(255,255,255,.7);
padding: 10px;
}
<figure>
<img src="http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/images/mediumsize/PIA17011_ip.jpg" />
<figcaption>
<h1>The image title</h1>
<p>This is the image caption</p>
</figcaption>
</figure>

Overlay a sibling box while respecting parent box

I'm thinking this isn't possible, but I'm not a CSS expert, so I thought I'd check. I've got a translucent div absolutely positioned over an image. That's good so far, but I'd like to force my translucent div to respect the box in which it and the image are contained.
<div class="parent">
<div class="title-bar"> /* prolly not important */
<h2>Title</h2>
</div>
<img src="whatever"/>
<div class="overlay">
A few lines of txt
</div>
</div>
The more I think about it, the more I think I may be asking for too much - I want the parent to expand with the img, but the overlay to be constrained by the parent. Can this be done?
To force the container expand with the child img, make it float.
To force the overlay relate to container position and size, make the container relative.
.parent {
float: left;
position: relative;
}
To force the overlay respect the bounds of the container, use percents.
.overlay {
position: absolute;
max-width: 100%;
/* And then, position it at will */
top: 0;
left: 0;
}
I've prepared an example: http://jsfiddle.net/rYnVL/
It's doable, but not quite beautiful :
<div id="parent">
<div id="abs">stuff fadsfasd fsad fasdsdaf </div>
<img src="/img/logo.png" />
</div>
#parent {width:auto; height:auto; border:1px solid blue; background-color:grey;position:relative; display:block;float:left;}
#abs {position:absolute;width:100%;height:100%;background:#ff0000;opacity:0.4;}
Main point to note :
parent floats to not have a 100% width. Position is relative.
abs is absolute, with 100% size.
also, if abs content is bigger than the image, it will overflow. If you do not like this, just add overflow:hidden.

Resources