I need help understanding clip-path CSS property in order to make my version of a clipped circle below...
More like the design version:
If you can see on the grey background, my circle appears a lot larger and less round when it's clipped.
What can I do to make a more round circle? My ideas were:
Use clip-path as in the snippet below
Use a pseudo :after element or a right border with radius
Cut a circle image from photoshop and use it as a background image.
Preferably, I'd like to avoid using a background image. However, I need to keep responsiveness in mind as the circle cannot change shapes drastically as we resize the window.
Is clip-path the right way to go? Can someone suggest a simpler and elegant solution with another way using CSS?
Thank you in advance, here's a snippet I wrote that illustrates how I clipped the "green/blue" background:
.page-banner {
background: grey;
width: 100%;
height: 300px;
background-position: top;
overflow: hidden;
}
.page-banner-text {
position: absolute;
background: #00525d8a;
padding-left: 100px;
width: 60%;
/* adjustments to snippet */
top: 10px;
left: 10px;
height: 300px;
/* this is the code for circle */
clip-path: circle(560px at left);
padding-right: 250px;
}
<div class="page-banner">
<div class="container">
<div class="page-banner-text">
<h1 class="block-title">Programs For Adults</h1>
<p>Programs to help children with disabilities in Western MA at all ages and levels of need.</p>
<div id="banner-donate-button">DONATE</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Per my comment, instead of using clip path to create your D (which is not supported very well), why not use border radius on your div.
* {
box-sizing: border-box;
}
.page-banner {
position: relative;
background: url(https://www.fillmurray.com/300/900) center center no-repeat;
background-size: cover;
width: 100%;
overflow: hidden; /* hide overflowing bits of circle */
min-height: 300px; /* just give enough height to fit text at smallest screen width size */
}
.circle {
background-color: rgba(50, 108, 116, 0.9); /* use rgba for transparent effect */
color: white;
transform: translate(-50%, -50%); /* move the circle left 50% of it's own width and up 50% of it's own height */
border-radius: 50%;
padding-top: 100%; /* this gives us a responsive square */
position: absolute;
top:50%; /* this vertically centers the circle */
left:0;
width:100%;
min-width:600px; /* this is the miniimum dimensions to allow circle to fill smaller screens */
min-height:600px;
}
.page-banner-text {
position: absolute; /* just positions the text on the right of the cirecle */
left: 50%;
top: 50%;
transform: translateY(-50%);
padding:2em;
width:40%;
}
<div class="page-banner">
<div class="circle">
<div class="page-banner-text">
<h1 class="block-title">Programs For Adults</h1>
<p>Programs to help children with disabilities in Western MA at all ages and levels of need.</p>
<div id="banner-donate-button">DONATE</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
The only problem with it being responsive though is that as the screen gets wider, the D gets flatter (as the radius extends), but you can combat this by adding a max width and height to the circle div
To anyone looking to solve this with the clip-path property, you have a bit more control with the ellipse clip path. Using the code provided by the OP, I replaced circle with ellipse, and switched to percentages to allow for a slightly better responsive feel.
clip-path:ellipse(67% 100% at 8% 50%);
The first two numbers represent the height and width of the ellipse. The larger the first number, the wider the visible area is. The larger the second number, the wider the height. We're aiming for a D shape, so by adjusting the first number, we can make the D more or less prominent.
This is where the second two numbers, the positioning, comes into play. at 50% 50% centers it. By adjusting the first number, the X positioning, we can move it over where need fit . After playing around with the numbers, you should be able to get the D exactly how you'd like.
.page-banner {
background: grey;
width: 100%;
height: 300px;
background-position: top;
overflow: hidden;
}
.page-banner-text {
position: absolute;
background: #00525d8a;
padding-left: 100px;
width: 60%;
/* adjustments to snippet */
top: 10px;
left: 10px;
height: 300px;
/* this is the code for circle */
clip-path: ellipse(67% 100% at 8% 50%);
padding-right: 250px;
}
<div class="page-banner">
<div class="container">
<div class="page-banner-text">
<h1 class="block-title">Programs For Adults</h1>
<p>Programs to help children with disabilities in Western MA at all ages and levels of need.</p>
<div id="banner-donate-button">DONATE</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
You could simply use
an inner circle element, which you can achieve with a border-radius equal to half the element's height and width
positioned via position: relative with negative top and left values
inside of an outer bounding box, clipped via overflow: hidden
A simple implementation:
#container {
height: 300px;
width: 100%;
background-color: gray;
overflow: hidden;
}
#circle {
height: 600px;
width: 600px;
background-color: rgba(0, 0, 255, 0.5);
position: relative;
top: -150px;
left: -375px;
}
<div id="container">
<div id="circle"></div>
</div>
Related
I have a header that has a background image. On this image I would like to place some divs with circle shapes to add some animations. The problem is that once the view port shrinks, the shapes will move accordingly if absolute position is used. I've tried it out with vh and vw units but the shapes will still move even if the background photo won't change too much. I just want that div to be there as if it was part of the photo. Is this possible?
There are is a pretty neat hack you can do for circles (or perfect squares). In an :after pseudo-class, you can say padding-bottom: 100% - this percent is relative to the .circle itself, and thus the width and height are exactly the same. Coupled with a percentage on the width of the circle, you can make these resize with the container.
You'll notice that resizing the container keeps the size of the circle relative to the parent, and the position relative to the parent as well.
.header {
position: relative;
height: 300px;
background: grey;
}
.circle {
width: 10%;
position: absolute;
}
.circle::after {
content: '';
display: block;
padding-bottom: 100%;
border: 1px solid green;
border-radius: 100%;
overflow: hidden;
}
.circle.top-left {
left: 10%;
top: 10%;
}
.circle.bottom-right {
right: 10%;
bottom: 10%;
}
<div class="header">
<div class="circle top-left"></div>
<div class="circle bottom-right"></div>
</div>
I am trying to achieve this with css3, I tried using border-radius with percent values and it's not the same always, I always got a rounded corners and the border will start disappearing on the corners too.
I want it to be exactly the same as the example image:
EDIT:
this is my html code :
<div class='container-fluid'>
<section class='section-1'>
<div class='container'>
</div>
</section>
And this is my css:
.section-1 {
background-image: url('../images/bg.png');
background-size: cover;
background-repeat: no-repeat;
position: relative;
background-position: 50%;
}
If you want, you can accomplish this using only CSS by creating a <div> that would be used only as a mask. You can create the round effect with the border-radius property, but you need to do it bigger than the part that will be visible, then crop the result to show only the curvy part that you want. And you must compensate the imagem position.
Check my example below:
.oval-header {
width: 100%;
height: 150px;
overflow: hidden;
position: relative
}
.oval-header--mask {
width: 200%; /* Mask width 2x the size of the header */
height: 200%; /* Mask height 2x the size of the header */
transform: translate(-25%, -51%); /* This compensates the size of the image and places the curvy part that you want on the certer of the mask, it's a translate that negativates half it's width and half it's height */
border: 6px solid yellow;
border-radius: 0 0 50% 50%;
overflow: hidden;
border-top: 0;
background-image: url('http://www.placecage.com/3000/1500');
background-size: cover
}
<div class="oval-header">
<div class="oval-header--mask">
</div>
</div>
Is it possible to create the following shape as a DIV in CSS.
The browser support is not important.
You cannot skew an element like this directly, you'll need to use two elements (or generated content) and hide certain overflow to make the flat bottom edge:
http://jsfiddle.net/6DQUY/1/
#skew {
height: 240px;
overflow: hidden;
}
.skew {
background: #000;
display: inline-block;
height: 300px;
width: 500px;
margin-top: 100px;
transform: skew(-8deg, -8deg);
}
Note: I removed the cross browser definitions for better readability.
UPDATE: This would be a more fluid example which resizes in set dimensions: http://jsfiddle.net/6DQUY/3/. Note the padding-bottom on the wrapper which defines the ratio. You may have to play around with the percentage amounts.
#skew {
padding-bottom: 20%;
overflow: hidden;
position: relative;
}
.skew {
background: #000;
position: absolute;
top: 30%;
right: 8%;
left: 8%;
height: 100%;
transform: skew(-8deg, -8deg);
}
Using SVG:
Below is a sample using SVG polygon which can also be scaled easily. Text (if required) can be absolutely positioned on top of the shape.
.shape-svg {
position: relative;
height: 100px;
width: 300px;
}
svg {
position: absolute;
top: 0px;
left: 0px;
height: 100%;
width: 100%;
}
polygon {
fill: black;
}
/* Just for demo*/
.shape-svg{
transition: all 1s;
}
.shape-svg:hover {
height: 200px;
width: 600px;
}
<div class="shape-svg">
<svg viewBox='0 0 100 100' preserveAspectRatio='none'>
<polygon points='5,35 100,0 95,100 0,100' />
</svg>
</div>
The shape can be created using SVG clip path also instead of polygon.
Using CSS and Single Element:
The same shape can be achieved with CSS using only one element also. The key is to set the transform-origin as the side that is required to be straight.
.shape{
height: 100px;
width: 300px;
margin-top: 50px;
background: black;
transform-origin: 0% bottom;
transform: perspective(300px) rotateY(-15deg) skewX(-10deg);
transition: all 1s;
}
.shape:hover{
width: 350px;
height: 150px;
transform: perspective(450px) rotateY(-15deg) skewX(-10deg);
}
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/prefixfree/1.0.7/prefixfree.min.js"></script>
<div class="shape"></div>
The shape achieved using this method can also be scaled. However as the height of the shape increases, the right side becomes taller and pushes the top-right corner even more higher. So, either the rotation angle needs to be decreased (or) the perspective needs to be increased (shape needs to be moved farther away) for the height of the right side to remain small enough and be within the viewing area. Or else, the margin-top should be increased.
Below is an explanation on why this happens:
Consider a rectangle positioned 300px in front of the viewer's eye. It is being rotated towards to the viewer and as the rotation happens, the side which is getting closer to the user will appear taller than the other side.
We have fixed the transform origin's x coordinate as 0% and so the height of the left side of the shape would be constant and that of the right side would keep increasing based on the rotation angle.
Because the transform origin's y coordinate is bottom, the bottom side of the shape would be kept straight and any height increase on the right side of the element would be projected upwards resulting in the shape going outside of the screen.
There is no such problem if only the width increases because the rotation angle is too minimal and so the shape's right side will never get anywhere close enough to the viewer to look very tall.
The shape in question is not an exact duplicate of the one discussed here but you can get some more ideas by looking at it :)
You could look into CSS transformations (transform) I have created a JsFiddle with a quick example.
HTML
<div class="skew"></div>
CSS
/* Skew the container one way */
.skew {
background: #000;
display: inline-block;
height: 50px;
width: 500px;
margin-top: 100px;
-webkit-transform: skewY(-5deg);
-moz-transform: skewY(-5deg);
-ms-transform: skewY(-5deg);
-o-transform: skewY(-5deg);
transform: skewY(-5deg);
}
NOTE:
You may need to include other transformations to get the unbalanced look.
--EDIT--
Here is another solution but using :before and :after CSS. JsFiddle.
I have the following DIV structure:
<div id="parent">
<div id="child"></div>
<div id="child2"></div>
</div>
I want to apply one half opaque background into the parent DIV, and one fully visible background to the child DIVs. However, it seems that the child will take over the parent, so, I have now no idea how to come over with this.
EDIT: Some more clarification.
I have a jQuery draggable "window" made of DIVs. Inside it, I have a progress bar with
relative position like:
position: relative;
left: 16px;
top: 16px;
This way the progress bar will be at 16-16 of the window (not the screen) and the progress bar moves correctly along with the window.
However, the progress bar has texture on the top. Take a look at this example:
<div style="background: url('texture.png'), url('empty.png'); width: 256px;">
<div style="background: url('progress.png'); width: 33%;"></div>
</div>
There's an opaque texture applied to the whole progress bar element, for example, if the percentage of this progress bar is 33%, then it looks like xxx------ where x denotes the flowing green bar and - is empty. The texture must be applied to both x and -, but currently the image of x takes place over the texture.
I can't really use Z-index and/or position absolute to position the child elem on the top, because of the relative positioned approach.
I don't know whether I understoood your question correctly, but aren't you looking for CSS3 RGBA colours?
p { color: rgba(0,0,255,0.5) } /* semi-transparent solid blue */
p { color: rgba(100%, 50%, 0%, 0.1) } /* very transparent solid orange */
Reference: 4.2.2 RGBA color values
Here is the progress bar code I use:
To change the percentage, just change the cover class' postiion (e.g. left:80%) and of course the text percentage both of which are in the HTML. Also, it uses a semi-transparent png for the bar image, so you can change the bar background color #888888 in this case to match whatever color you desire.
Note: the files are hosted on tinypic and it's been a little slow for me lately, so give it a few extra seconds to see the images.
CSS
.wrapper {
background: transparent url(http://i50.tinypic.com/2a65xtf.png) no-repeat scroll 0pt 0pt;
width: 216px;
height: 25px;
position: relative;
}
.bar {
background: #888888 url(http://i49.tinypic.com/2cdzyj9.png) repeat scroll center center;
overflow: hidden;
position: absolute;
display: block;
width: 200px;
height: 15px;
top: 6px;
left: 8px;
text-indent: -30px;
}
.cover {
background: transparent url(http://i47.tinypic.com/zyfq61.png) repeat-x scroll 0pt 0pt;
position: absolute;
display: block;
width: 200px;
height: 15px;
top: 0px;
}
.bartext {
position: absolute;
display: block;
top: -0.2em;
font-size: 12pt;
font-weight: bold;
color: #ffffff;
}
HTML
<div class="wrapper">
<span class="bar">
<em class="cover" style="left:50%">
<span class="bartext">50%</span>
</em>
</span>
</div>
Since the children are divs, they will fill to the maximum width they can, which so happens to be the width of the parent. As a result, child and child2 will cover all the area the parent fills. To get some of the parent to show around the children, try setting the size of the children to something less than that of the parent, or try adding padding to the parent.
this is the solution for IE, the bold pieces of code are the magic ones:
<style type="text/css">
#parent { background: red; opacity: .5; filter: alpha(opacity=50); width: 100px; height: 100px }
#child1, #child2 { margin: 10px; position: relative }
#child1 { background: blue }
#child2 { background: green }
</style>
<div id="parent">
<div id="child">lorem
<div id="child2">ipsum
</div>
To be cross-browser I would suggest using an alpha PNG in the parent's background, making life much easier.
What's the best way (if any) to make the inside box transparent so the image can be seen with no opacity (clear image) and the rest of the outer box opaque. So far this is what I'm doing:
<style>
#a {
background-color: black;
float: left;
} #b {
opacity : 0.4;
filter: alpha(opacity=40);
} #div {
position: absolute;
height: 30px;
width: 30px;
top: 90px;
left: 90px;
border: 1px solid #FFF;
background: transparent;
}
</style>
<div id="a">
<div id="b">
<img src="http://clagnut.com/images/ithaka.jpg" />
</div>
</div>
<div id="div"></div>
Any ideas? thx
The maximum opacity of an element is the opacity of its parent element. So if div#b has an opacity of 40%, if his children have 100% opacity in style they will also be 40% absolute opacity.
To accomplish what you're describing (at least what I think you're describing), one way could be to have both the transparent wrapper and the image children of a parent div with relative positioning. You can absolutely position both of the children inside of that wrapper so that the image shows up on top of the transparent box.
Edit: Here is the code for the effect you are describing. My example has a 480 x 320 image, and a 30-pixel border:
<style>
#back {background-image:url(mypicture.jpg);
width:480px;
height:320px;
position:relative;}
#middle {position:absolute;
width:480px;
height:320px;
background-color:#000;
opacity:0.4;
filter:alpha(opacity=40);
top:0;
left:0;}
#front {position:absolute;
width:420px; /* 30px border on left & right */
height:260px; /* 30px border on top & bottom */
background-image:url(mypicture.jpg);
background-position:-30px -30px; /* compensate for the border */
top:30px;
left:30px;}
</style>
<div id="back">
<div id="middle">
</div>
<div id="front">
</div>
</div>
If I understand you correctly, try using just one div (i.e. get rid of the outer one with ID "a") and setting a colored border around it. Or you could get more flexibility by "faking" a border using 4 divs for the left, right, top, and bottom edges and 4 more for the corners.
It's kind of hard to know what you mean without an example page, or screenshots of what you expect and what you're actually getting.
EDIT: I was about to edit in basically the same thing Rex M wrote. Here's another (although idealistically inferior) way to do it:
<style>
#a {
float: left;
position: relative;
}
div.overlay {
opacity: 0.4;
background-color: black;
position: absolute;
}
#t {
left: 0; top: 0; height: 90px; width: 450px;
}
#b {
left: 0; top: 120px; height: 218px; width: 450px;
}
#l {
left: 0; top: 90px; height: 30px; width: 90px;
}
#r {
left: 120px; top: 90px; height: 30px; width: 330px;
}
</style>
<div id="a">
<div id="t" class="overlay"></div>
<div id="b" class="overlay"></div>
<div id="l" class="overlay"></div>
<div id="r" class="overlay"></div>
<img src="http://clagnut.com/images/ithaka.jpg">
</div>
If you want to be sure that the images have a certain color for a background, you could just as well stick a background to all IMG-elements in your stylesheet:
div#a img { background: #FFF; }
Anyhow, the filter-property in CSS should not be relied upon, as it is not part of the official specifications for CSS 2.1.
I might have misunderstood the question, though. Could you rephrase it or provide pictures of expected results?
To follow on what Rex M said, you'll need to change things so that the non-transparent elements aren't children of the transparent elements.
You can use absolute or relative positioning to line up your "border" with the picture, although this can often have inconsistencies between browsers.
The most painless way off the top of my head is to use javascript to get the top and left pixel locations of the image and set the top/left css properties of the border to match (and set the size of the border to that of the image).
UPDATE:
The asker showed an example of what he is trying to recreate. In the example linked, the shaded areas (the "not selected" area) of the picture is created by 4 divs.
The top and bottom divs are the full width of the image, and are set to have a height that is the difference between the top/bottom of the selection box and the top/bottom of the image respectively.
The side divs have height and width modified so that they fill in the "side areas" of the image.
The sizes are updated via a mousemove event.