I'm looking to achieve a similar result to the one that is explained here. I've included the exact snippet below:
flex: 1 1 0;
Here we are saying that the size of the item for the purposes of our
space distribution calculation is 0 — all the space is up for grabs
and as all of the items have the same flex-grow factor, they each get
an equal amount of space distributed. The end result is three equal
width, flexible items.
I will be working with a column of vertical children as aposed to a row of horizontal children, but the working shouldn't differ.
My issue is that in the above example, an explicit width (in my case, height) has been set, which I cannot do. I am looking to create four equally sized quarters regardless of the content each one contains.
In a nutshell – is there a way to have equal height child divs, with varying content, inside a parent with no explicit height?
Any help greatly appreciated!
After a lot of testing, I realised that using flexbox for this wasn't achievable (easily at least). Using CSS Grid however is incredibly straight forward. For anyone interested in the solution, it is as easy as giving each 'module' a value of 1fr.
Related
I want to utilize CSS3 Columns around my site as it on wide pages provides a better UX for the users. However if I use CSS3 Columns, sometimes the left column is full (lets say 20 lines of text) and the right side only have2 lines of text. Can I with pure css3 (maybe Flexbox) make it have equal amount of content? Or do I need JS to fix this?
Beaware I'm not talking about equal height, but equal amount of content :)
You'll need to specify a height property.
From the Mozilla docs:
The CSS3 Column specification requires that the column heights must be
balanced: that is, the browser automatically sets the maximum column
height so that the heights of the content in each column are
approximately equal.
However, in some situations it is also useful to set the maximum
height of the columns explicitly, and then lay out content starting at
the first column and creating as many columns as necessary, possibly
overflowing to the right. Therefore, if the height is constrained, by
setting the CSS height or max-height properties on a multi-column
block, each column is allowed to grow to that height and no further
before adding new column. This mode is also much more efficient for
layout.
Sorry it was a padding-bottom which messed it up. When I remove that it spreads out nicely. Strange!
I’ve been working on this for over 10 hours, searching the web for a solution, to no avail.
Here is the screen capture of the sketch:
I need to produce a grid layout with the following requirements:
The whole thing is in a horizontal scrolling layout.
Responsive in height, relative to its container (which is already responsive relative to body, using the Stretch-to-margin technic).
3 lines of equal height (33.333%)
Composed of square images anchors
On mouse over: color overlay with white text
The square images need to keep their proportion (reduce the height of the window, image width must scale down.
The width of the whole layout must be dynamic, since the number of squares may vary.
I’ve seen tons of examples where the width is defined, and using the padding-top value to define the height. It would not work here since the Height is the defining value.
I will be posting again with updates tomorrow.
I’m kinda desperate. Thinking of taking up drinking (kidding).
The Question is Answered!
I finally used the "vh" unit, and applied it to HEIGHT and WIDTH of all the squares.
Goes something like this:
.c-squares{
width:30vh;
height:30vh;
display:inline;
}
So clean, can’t believe I’ve never knew about "vh" unit.
I have never heard of this intrinsic value before until I come across this page on MDN.
From what I know intrinsic means natural. So how does this work out in CSS. I thought that auto would have been natural. I've searched around a bit but can't find anything on it.
What does it do different than auto?
The example I saw was max-width: intrinsic;
It looks like the intrinsic value is part of the newer CSS3 sizing module:
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-sizing/
I have not used it yet but perhaps the reference will provide you with more information.
Based on a quick review, this module would make it easier to specify how content fills the width and height of a parent containing block.
At the moment, JavaScript functions are often used to compute widths and heights of container blocks based on % values for variable child elements content.
It allows you to set the width of an element to stretch wide enough to accommodate its children. So, if a div element contained a wide image and some text, the div would stretch wide enough to accommodate the image, and the text would begin breaking at that threshold.
Definitely experimental and not widely supported: http://caniuse.com/intrinsic-width
Intrinsic sizing determines sizes based on the contents of an element,
without regard for its context.
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-sizing/#intrinsic-sizing
I have found that in iOS8, flexbox children may not always try to contain all their children and instead max their height to the available viewport.
min-height: min-intrinsic fixes that problem.
This question already has answers here:
How to set the margin or padding as percentage of height of parent container?
(9 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I'm just learning CSS fluid layouts & responsive design, and I'm trying to use all percentage values with no px values in a layout.
So far it seems to be working, but in one spot, I'm seeing something I didn't expect. I'm trying to put a margin between two vertically stacked divs that changes based on the height of the container. I'd expect that margin to change when I resize the window vertically, but it also grows if you resize it horizontally, which I don't want. What am I missing?
Here's a fiddle. Thanks for your help in advance.
http://jsfiddle.net/gregir/aP5kz/
In CSS, all four margin: and padding: percentages are relative to the width ...even though that may seem nonsensical. That's just the way the CSS spec is, there's nothing you can do about it.
Can you do what you want with 'ex' (or 'em') instead? That's the way I'm used to seeing "fluid" values for margin/padding specified ...and it may be less problematic than percentages. (Although I don't have the relevant first-hand experience, I suspect the extremely long precisions on your calculated percentage values are going to set you up for browser incompatibility problems later. My style is to limit CSS percentages to integers if at all possible, or occasionally perhaps one or sometimes maybe even two digits after the decimal point.)
If you really want an exact arbitrarily-sized empty vertical space that's a percentage of the container, the first thing that comes to my mind is a separate empty < div > with a "height: nn%" CSS specification. Or perhaps something else you're specifying is already handling the vertical sizes they way you wish (since it would appear the margins aren't really doing anything at all on a vertical resize).
Yes, it is unexpected and counter-intuitive, but it works as designed & I have no idea why it works as it does. See margin-top percentage does not change when window height decreases
I am working on a layout consisting of several nested Divs and I am ideally looking to get the content areas to stretch the height of the screen. This is pretty simple and I have done it in the past but not in this type of layout and am struggling with it. Instead of me pasting all of the code, I uploaded it to server that can be previewed.
http://www.danyuschick.com/theembalmed/
Any help would be great. I'm at my wit's end with this right now.
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#the-height-property
< percentage >
Specifies a percentage height. The percentage is calculated with respect to the height of the generated box's containing block. If the height of the containing block is not specified explicitly (i.e., it depends on content height), and this element is not absolutely positioned, the value computes to 'auto'.
So whenever you use percentages as height the containing block of the element must have an explicit height to be considered.
Look at this link:
http://ninja-code.net/extra/stackoverflow_test.php
It uses a lot less DIV and will expand as you fill content. It also keeps your images as borders along the 'conent' - I wasn't sure if you were wanting it to repeat.
I didn't want to hassle with pushing the footer to the bottom though.