I am trying to modify the CSS in a Wordpress plugin I need to use. The stylesheet (learnpress.css) is over 2000 lines long, so understanding it is a challenge; but what I'm trying to do is pretty simple -- change the background color of a certain class.
The code is at https://tgtau.rickcasey.net/courses/the-great-turning-you/, but when I change the background color of the section-content class in Chrome's developer tools, nothing happens:
Can anyone point out how I can find out what other css styles are overriding this? Other posts only hint at CSS being difficult to diagnose how inheritance and precedence work, so I'm hoping there are some techniques in chrome-dev-tools on how to do that. Thanks!
The background is set in the li elements themselves, so no matter what you set your ul background to, it won't be visible as the contained li elements are not transparent (solid white).
When debugging these cases, remember that every element can have its own background color, and containers can auto-size to their contents. You can also override the css on the li elements to make them transparent so that your ul background is visible.
Related
Is it possible to make a :hover on the :before element so that something shows over it?
Yes it can be done like..
.selector:hover:before {/* css rule goes here */}
It is impossible to add a :hover style (or :active, or :focus) to any elements like :before or :after. They would have to be applied to an actual HTML element, not a pseudo-element.
From your screenshot, it appears you're trying to create a hover menu. Depending on your styles, you may be able to apply the :hover styles to the ul itself. However, you'll only be able to control ul styles with CSS - you cannot control li styles based on the hover state of their parent without JS.
If JS is an option, use it - it should be pretty simple in this case, and would make the code a lot easier. If css-only is a requirement, you might be able to get around this by setting the <ul> to a specific height (large enough to show the hover item but nothing else), and give ul:hover a larger height, or height: auto;, etc.
Its called offcanvas
Refer https://www.w3schools.com/howto/howto_js_off-canvas.asp
AND https://v4-alpha.getbootstrap.com/examples/offcanvas/
Let me know if you require any further help
I'm using dir-pagination found here.
This utilizes bootstrap styling. I can change the rest of the styles for the pagination controls, but I can't force the hover effect to have no color.
I can ensure that it has a color, by specifying one, but if I try to override it in a way that will force it to not have a color such as transparent, it defaults to the white color. My specificity is exactly the same as in the bootstrap css... but even if I remove the style in the bootstrap css is still defaults to white.
Been researching this for hours.
EDIT: See the following plunkr for an example of my problem.
http://plnkr.co/edit/2OvXNgX81NspuO9g356J?p=preview
twilliams Hi there.
Is this what you are trying to do?
Add this to your css.
.pagination li a:hover {
background-color: rgba(255,128,128,.5);
}
This will change the pagination background transparent color when each one is hovered.
Have a look at this Plunker.
I just realized my mistake and I feel foolish. I was making the assumption I had another element below with the color I wanted, and I was simply changing the color of an overlay element.
Turns out I didn't have that other element below, and so it really was just pulling the white of the monitor. I was a little clouded by the complexity of my current project that I didn't see it like I did with the simplicity of the plunkr example I made.
I have an issue using the slicknav responsive menu, if the navigation buttons have a different background colour set for the hover in the stylesheet, if you hover over the actual tag text the background colour changes correctly, but if you hover over any part of the button away from the text, then the colour behind the actual text doesn't change. So you get a rather ugly box around the text in the original colour. This is happening in all browsers tested.
I cannot find any way to stop this happening, the css file is not that complicated. I've used Slicknav now on a few sites and always had the same problem, but this time I really need to fix it.
You can see an example of this here: http://www.yorkluxuryholidays.co.uk/
In responsive mode, hover anywhere over one of the menu items that have sub menus, but not directly over the menu text itself, and the area behind the text does not change colour.
This is the css I'm using for the hover:
.slicknav_nav .slicknav_item:hover {
background:#59584e;
color:#fff; }
.slicknav_nav a:hover{
background:#59584e;
color:#fff;}
It seems to make no difference which class you set the colour on, either or both, the behaviour is exactly the same.
I'd love to know if there is a way to fix this with the css!
Add in your css :
.slicknav_nav a:hover * {
color:#fff;
background-color:#7b9fc7;
}
OK, sorry...this is kind of a basic CSS question but it's driving me crazy. I'm self-taught so I'm sure I am just missing something simple.
Site: http://notes.benadelt.com
The logo image sprite is just a home link...I'm trying to remove that background color that you can see is ruining the transparency of the image:
<a class="ben-logo" href="/"></a>
You can see that CSS gives any links in that section a light background-color, which is being applied to the image sprite as well. I'm trying to remove that background color from my image, but not from the body links, and cannot figure it out. Using dev tools I can only impact the style using:
header .words a { background: none; }
But that obviously removes the background from ALL links, so it also removes my image background in the sprite.
Figured there would be something I could add after the background URL to do this, such as:
background: url(http://www.benadelt.com/notes/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Ben-Logo-Sprite.svg) none;
When you hover, it looks like I want it to look normally without that darn background-color.
Any help would be appreciated!
Ben
header .words a.ben-logo { background-color: transparent; }
The above code will target only the logo link. By setting the background colour to transparent, you leave the image itself (and all the other background properties!) intact.
Edit: One thing - I believe you already have transparent set on that background image by virtue of not specifying a colour (transparent is the default). What is probably happening in your case is that the a.ben-logo declaration comes before the .words a declaration in your stylesheet, so it's being overridden. The reason the above code should fix it is because the extra class names add more specificity. Here is Andy Clarke's specificity cheat sheet for you to peruse: http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/images/specificitywars-05v2.jpg
Is there a CSS hack/technique to take an <img> element (with no other markup) and hide the pixel content of the image while still displaying it as an element with background color and stroke?
For example, take an <img src="foo.jpg"> on the page and make it a 32x32 badge of solid color.
Though I am interested in browser-specific hacks (does Webkit have a solid-fill effect?) or CSS3 awesomesauce (is there an image-content-opacity:0.0?), I need a solution that works on IE8+, FF4+ and thereabouts.
If you are interested in the motivation for this question, see the edit history of this page. It has been removed because it was distracting users into helpfully trying to find workarounds to solve that problem instead of answer this question.
Hide the image and use the background filled with a solid color.
Example here http://jsfiddle.net/notme/ZUvHN/6/
This is a take off of my comments above and notme's solution:
http://jsfiddle.net/ZUvHN/7/
What I did was I removed display:table-cell from the a and then set it to display: block
I then set the img to display: none
This lets you then apply the border and background styles to the a tag instead of the img tag. You'll likely have to tweak the margins and spacing a bit.
I don't know if you have the option or not, but it might be easier to tweak the HTML a bit via JavaScript.