Can divs below a css transform move along with divs above? - css

I am using css transitions to lay out a bunch of divs on top of each other. At any point, one of the divs may collapse. And all of the divs below it are supposed to move up to fill its spot.
Here is a codepen that describes the situation.
The css I am using is the following:
div {
height: 100px;
width: 100px;
margin: 15px;
}
.top {
background-color: red;
transform-origin: top;
animation: move 2s infinite;
}
.bottom {
background-color: blue;
}
#keyframes move {
0% {
transform: rotateX(0deg);
}
50% {
transform: rotateX(90deg);
}
}
With this, the top div will expand and contract. I want the divs below it to move up as the top one collapses.
If I switch transform for height, like this:
#keyframes move {
0% {
height 0;
}
50% {
height: 100px;
}
}
The bottom divs do move, but this is not a good solution for me because in the actual application, each div has a dynamically calculated size.
How can the bottom divs move smoothly with the top div?

With transform you won't be able to do that, as when an element is transformed, the surrounding elements won't see any change in the DOM, as DOM-wise nothing have happened.
What you can do to optimize it all, is to prepare the browser that the height will change, with the property will-change: height
MDN: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/will-change
This new CSS property aim's to do what transform does, make smoother and more optimized animations.
Do note though:
will-change is intended to be used as a last resort, in
order to try to deal with existing performance problems. It should not
be used to anticipate performance problems.
Another possible solution (read hack), is to trick the browser to use GPU instead of CPU, shown in this answer (see its p.1):
CSS `will-change` - how to use it, how it works
Updated
In case of the height is auto, or similar, this will work with the max-height trick, and here is a couple of answers of mine, showing how-to:
CSS Animation on max-height change
Can't use the same animation in reverse for class toggle
CSS transition auto width
And the last resort, if none of the above is applicable, is to use a small script and either create a styles dynamically (links below), or set them inline.
Dynamically styling pseudo-elements using jQuery or Javascript
How to prevent css from getting converted to inline css

Related

Trigger second animation keyframe (or move div permanently) with CSS animations?

I've tried searching for a solution to this problem, but haven't found one yet.
What I'm trying to do is simple:
When I click one button, I'd like a box to move 200px to the right with CSS transitions. When I click a second button, I'd like the box to move 200px down from the position it is currently in.
I have this basic code here:
HTML
<button class="one">First</button>
<button class="two">Second</button>
<div class="box"></div>
CSS
.box {
width: 100px;
height: 100px;
background-color: red;
transition: transform 2s;
}
.box.transOne {
transform: translateX(200px);
}
.box.transTwo {
transform: translateY(200px);
}
JS
$(".one").click(function() {
$(".box").toggleClass("transOne");
});
$(".two").click(function() {
$(".box").toggleClass("transTwo");
})
However, when I click on button number two, the box does move 200 down, but it moves diagonally back to the first X axis position while it's going down (I.e. it doesn't stay 200px over on the X axis).
Is there a way I can possibly do this with keyframes? Like triggering a second keyframe with a second button click, etc. Or is there a better way? I'm pretty stumped and can't find any solutions, so any help is much appreciated. Thanks!
SHORT ANSWER
set the translation X in class .transTwo too
.box.transTwo {
transform: translate(200px 200px);
}
EXPLANATION
the transform is overriding the others, this is the nature behaviour of the css, just like other property color, background-color,
The basic rule is the latest property set is the strongest, the strongest is at inline style unless you implement !important

position: fixed not working

Working on a website today I found myself in the position (haha...) that a logo that I wanted to fix to the viewport didn't stick anymore. In my research to resolve this problem I learned that position: fixed won't fix to viewport if the ancestor element has a transform on it (see positions-fixed-doesnt-work-when-using-webkit-transform).
I made sure not to have any transforms on my element (or it's ancestors), I even tried to remove all child elements (which happen to have transforms and animations on them) – but I still didn't manage to get things going.
I am sort of clueless right now, so I made a jsfiddle for others to look at. The element that needs fixing is the bright red .titles element: http://jsfiddle.net/ZWcD9/90/
remove transfrom from body
body {
width: 100%;
/* -webkit-transform: translateZ(0); */
/* transform: translateZ(0); */
}

-webkit-appearance forcing transitions?

Given a basic HTML template and CSS style, I'm seeing two different elements react completely different.
setTimeout(function() {
document.body.id = 'animate';
}, 100);
#animate input[type="checkbox"]{
width: 100px;
height: 100px;
transition: 2s all;
-moz-appearance: none;
}
#animate div{
width: 100px;
height: 100px;
background:blue;
transition: 2s all;
}
<input type="checkbox"/>
<div></div>
If you open this in a browser, you see that, on load, the div already has its 100px height/width, yet the checkbox grows from 0px to 100px height/width over 2s.
Why does the input behave differently than the div? Is it because the input has default -webkit-appearance giving it something to transition between?
The div's default width/height is auto and as such it won't animate.
The input has a default width/height and as such will animate.
As a side note, the transition does work on the div, though only animate its color, as it is possible to animate a color from transparent to blue
You should also consider to not use all with transition, as it can give unpredictalbe result because of this fact that browsers does set some values on elements to a default value, where some can be animated, some can't.
So, in your case, if your intention is to animate width/height, set it up like this: transiton: width 2s ease, height 2s ease;
The answer is simple. The input's style has a pre-loaded values in the DOM, that's why just right after appearing in the document, smoothly changes his shape.
Quite contrary with the div element. The div hasn't any pre-loaded, default values in the DOM before setting them by the user. That's why it appears in the document with already set size.
Important note
If you want the transition to work, it has to have a set, starting, default value and ending value. The animation will occur between these two values. The input has already set the default value of the size, that's why the animation will occur.
You may ask, so why the background transition is working? It works, since the default value of background is transparent.
setTimeout(function() {
$('.xx').addClass('x');
}, 500);
* {
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
border: 0;
}
input[type="checkbox"] {} div {} .x {
width: 100px;
height: 100px;
transition: all 2s ease;
background: blue;
}
.container {
display: flex;
}
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div class='container'>
<input type='checkbox'>
<div class='xx'></div>
<input class='xx' type="checkbox">
</div>
Short answer without being to technical. CSS transition's will do it's job when there is a previous state to start animate from.
A default div doesn't have any styling by default.
An input element is always pre-styled in the browser itself.
Here is a fiddle that can be used to re-create the behaviour that the OP mentioned. It simulate external loading with a simply JS delay. https://jsfiddle.net/xvt359ju/1/
Nevermind, 2 other answers was faster than me.
Browsers have their own basic CSS styling of elements, the checkbox too have it. When you inspect the element you can see width and height to the checkbox applied by the browser, that will be overridden when your external stylesheets loads. And animating it as you have given transition to it.

Why do not defining width on absolute positioned child get unusual behaviour?

Basically, I have 3 absolutely positioned elements within a relative container, one of them with left: 100% (the one coming next) and one with left: -100% (the previous picture). They transition between the available places automatically with the transition property. The final result of this can be seen here.
<div id="slideshow">
<article>
<img>
</article><article>
<img>
</article><article>
<img>
</article>
</div>
<style>
div#slideshow { position: relative; overflow: hidden }
img { width: 100%; height: auto }
article { width: 100%; position: absolute; transition: left 1s }
article.current { left: 0 }
article.prev { left: -100% }
article.next { left: 100% }
</style>
(This is the result without overflow: hidden applied, to see how the slideshow works.)
As you can see, the <img>s are responsive to their parent, <article>. I know that block elements always take the available width, so I didn't think I had to state it, but as you can see, I had to specify width: 100% on the <article>, too. What happens if I don't? Something interesting, I'd say.
The .prev <img> turns twice as big as the others, and the .next <img> renders at size 0x0. What? You clearly see that all the image should have the same dimensions: 100% width, and auto height.
What I wanted to understand is; why does the CSS work like it does? I find this result quite unexpected, so I really wanted some kind of a discussion on why the result returns what it does, so that I could better understand how the underlying components of the CSS values actually work.
Your problem is not in the images themselves, but on the article.
It's the article elements that are ruling the dimensions, and image gets the dimensions from them.
The width of the article is not set. Lacking that, and in the presence of a left statement, a value of right 0px is assumed. So, when left is 0, the width is 100% of the container, when the left is -100% the width is 200%, and when the left is 100%, the width is 0.
How to solve this ?
Add a width: 100% to article. - the direct solution.
Instead of moving the articles with the left property, do it with a transform: translateX(-100%); You won't have the problem derived from changing left, and it is more performant

Using CSS translateY()

I am moving some element from (browser height + element height)px towards the top of the browser at -50px of the browser using CSS keyframes and that works but the problem is it's lagging and I am well aware that using translateY would resolve this issue.
Now assume I have a CSS as follows.
.bubble
{
-webkit-transition: -webkit-transform 1s ease-in-out;
}
.bubble.move
{
-webkit-transform: translateY(-50px);
}
As the element is below the browser screen (browser height + element height)px and I want it to move at the top of the screen at -50px, that doesn't work. It just moves the element from its current position to the -50px of that current position which is not intended. How can I ask transitions to go at -50px of the browser and not he element?
Translate isn't what you're looking for. You want to position the element absolutely and put the transition on the top property. Something like:
.bubble {
position:absolute;
top:100%;
transition:top 1s ease-in-out;
}
.bubble.move {
top:50px;
}
Only bad part about this approach is that the body will need to be the relative parent of the .bubble. I left out vendor prefixes because I hate them.
Have you tried positioning the element absolutely instead of relatively?
Use javascript to calculate it and set the css using javascript too

Resources