I am trying to build a two column design with an Angular 2 app. I created a plunker to reproduce my problem: https://plnkr.co/3Evxm9?p=info
I want the scrollable area to be the red div (.overflow), not the .page. Without the .page { overflow: auto } the page won't scroll at all, though I would expect .overflow to do so since it has a defined height of 100%. The padding is there to offset from the .top div. I initially though using margin instead, but without the overflow: auto on .page, the margin goes outsides the bounds of .container (which shrinks to fit the height (padding included, margin excluded) of .overflow.
I seem to misunderstand the behaviour of the flexbox.
I made some adjustment to your css to make the red area scrollable only.
css:
.page {
width: 100%; height: 100vh;
background: red;
flex: 1;
overflow: hidden;
}
.overflow {
font-size: 30px;
padding-top: 64px;
height: 93vh;
overflow: scroll;
}
Thanks for providing a plunker. It helped a lot to find a solution for you. Here's the link to the edited plunker.
Hope this helps!
Related
Say you have this:
html, body {margin: 0; padding: 0}
.box {width: 100vw; height: 100vh}
<div class="box">Screen 1</div>
You'll get something that fills the screen, no scrollbars. But add another:
<div class="box">Screen 1</div>
<div class="box">Screen 2</div>
You get not only vertical scrollbars (expected), but a slight horizontal scroll.
I realize you could omit the width, or set it to width: 100%, but I'm curious why this is happening. Isn't 100vw supposed to be "100% of the viewport width"?
As already explained by wf4, the horizontal scroll is present because of the vertical scroll. which you can solve by giving max-width: 100%.
.box {
width: 100vw;
height: 100vh;
max-width:100%; /* added */
}
Working Fiddle
scrollbars will be included in the vw so the horizontal scroll will be added to allow you to see under the vertical scroll.
When you only have 1 box, it is 100% wide x 100% tall. Once you add 2, its 100% wide x 200% tall, therefore triggering the vertical scrollbar. As the vertical scrollbar is triggered, that then triggers the horizontal scrollbar.
You could add overflow-x:hidden to body
html, body {margin: 0; padding: 0; overflow-x:hidden;}
.box {width: 100vw; height: 100vh; background-color:#ff0000}
.box2 {width: 100vw; height: 100vh; background-color:#ffff00}
http://jsfiddle.net/NBzVV/
I had a similar problem and came up with the following solution using JS and CSS variables.
JS:
function setVw() {
let vw = document.documentElement.clientWidth / 100;
document.documentElement.style.setProperty('--vw', `${vw}px`);
}
setVw();
window.addEventListener('resize', setVw);
CSS:
width: calc(var(--vw, 1vw) * 100);
1vw is a fallback value.
If you're working in a framework (ASP.NET for example) where there's possibly a parent element wrapping around the html, then setting the html's max-width to 100% will solve the problem without using the "band-aid" solution overflow-x: hidden.
html {
max-width: 100%;
}
The reason why 100vw is causing a horizontal scrollbar is well explained in other responses: 100vw counts the width of the vertical scrollbar to the html itself. I think this is a little absurd, but it is what it is, you know :)
Update: As of Chrome version 66, I cannot reproduce the behaviour reported by question anymore. No workaround appears to be needed.
Original Answer
This is actually a bug as reported in this answer and the comments above.
While the workaround in the accepted answer (adding .box {max-width: 100%;}) generally works, I find it noteworthy that it does not currently work for display:table (tested in Chrome). In that case, the only workaround I found is to use width:100% instead.
Broken Fiddle with display:table
Working Fiddle with display:table and width:100%
to get rid of the scrollbar width included in vw i had to do this:
html, body {
overflow-x: hidden;
height: 100vh;
}
*,
html,
body {
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
overflow: hidden;/*add This*/
}
/*and enjoy ^_^ */
You can try:
*{ box-sizing: border-box}
the reason why the content is flowing out of screen is maybe you have extra padding or border on the div and it cause the content out of the broswer
We use the percentage trick on paddings to keep aspect ratio to a div when the user scales his window. Like this:
.div {
background: red;
width: 80%;
margin: 0 auto 10px;
-webkit-box-sizing: border-box;
box-sizing: border-box;
padding-bottom: 20%;
}
Now we would like to be able to set a maximum height to this div. Because the height of the div is determined by the padding on the div we would need the div to be border-boxed. So far so good. When trying to use a min-height on the div, this works. The max-height on this div however does not work for some reason.
.div {
max-height: 60px;
}
I created a fiddle to show you what i mean: http://jsfiddle.net/UxuEB/3/.
Tested this on Chrome, FF and IE. Can somebody tell me what I'm doing wrong or why this doesn't work as expected?
I realize this answer comes incredibly late to the party but I was trying to solve this exact same thing today and this question is the first result in Google. I ended up solving it with the below code so hopefully that will help someone out in the future.
First, add an extra inner div:
<div class="control control-max-height">
<div class="control-max-height-inner">
Max-height
</div>
</div>
And set the padding on that while hiding the overflow on the outer div:
.control {
background: red;
width: 80%;
margin: 0 auto 10px;
-webkit-box-sizing: border-box;
box-sizing: border-box;
}
.control-max-height {
max-height: 120px;
overflow: hidden;
}
.control-max-height-inner {
padding-bottom: 20%;
}
This obviously assumes you're fine with hiding part of the inner element when it overflows. In my case that wasn't a problem because the inner element is just an empty link element to make the whole thing clickable and the outer element just has a centered background image and a border set.
See fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/UxuEB/7/
The property max-height works on the height of the element and you want to use it on the height and padding-bottom.
I think you are confused by the box-sizing property that it changes the element height to the overal height including the padding top and bottom (also me). But this is not the case as you will see in the jsFiddle example.
An example:
The element with content is 100px in height.
The max-height is set to 50px (element is now 50px in height).
Now we apply the padding-bottom of 100px (more then the height of the element). The padding of 100px is added to the total height of the element making it 150px.
JsFiddle example: clicky
Extending from Mike's answer, the same can be achieved with a single DOM element & a pseudo element, eg.
html:
<div class="le-div"></div>
css:
div.le-div {
max-height: 200px;
/* 👇 only necessary if applying any styles to the pseudo element
other than padding:
overflow: hidden;
*/
}
div.le-div::before {
content: '';
display: block;
padding-bottom: 60%;
}
Min-height property defines the height when height is solely dependent on padding only but max-height does not.
Not sure why but now in 2020, min and max css units does nice job as we need.
.classthatshoulddefineheight {
padding-bottom: min(20%, 60px);
}
So when 20% becomes greater than 60px then it will be limited to 60px (minimum of them).
The limitation to Mike's answer (and this Brad's answer - although Brad's technique can be incorporated to reduce the number of levels of containers) is that it requires overflow: hidden - which in my use-case (and in many others) a significant limitation.
I've reworked his example to work without overflow: hidden; using an additional level and absolute positioning.
http://jsfiddle.net/2ksh56cr/2/
The trick is to add another container inside the inner box, make it absolute positioned and then add the max-height to that container as well:
.inner-inner {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
bottom: 0;
left: 0;
right: 0;
max-height: 120px;
}
As long as your fine with having some additional DOM-elements, this should work in all scenarios for more or less all browsers.
Try display: flow-root; on the parent container.
I am relatively new to front-end dev so a bit lost as to how i can go about this. I created a container that contains a slider and some images. My supervisor has a huge screen so obviously there will be empty space at the bottom of the screen. So he doesn't want that. Instead he wants the container to be centered horizontally and vertically based on the size of the user's screen.
How can I do this properly with as minimal code as possible? I believe there is jQuery plugin but wanted to see if there is a better way or if doing this makes sense at all or not?
Due to the flow-based nature of CSS, without Javascript this can only be done if the vertical size of the centered element is fixed, by applying a position:absolute' andtop:50%` within a fixed container, and then use negative margin to offset the container. Click here for JSFiddle Sample.
Alternatively the same effect can be reached by using display:table-cell, but that's kind of messy and loses you a lot of flexibility. Sample already supplied in the other answer here so I'll save myself the effort :)
You can do it easily using a vertical-align property.
Since vertical-align works the desired way way only in a table cell, this trick with display property can give you the desired effect.
#yourDiv {
// give it a size
width: 100px;
height: 100px;
margin: 0 auto;
}
html, body {
height: 100%;
width: 100%;
padding: 0; margin: 0;
}
html {
display: table;
}
body {
display: table-cell;
vertical-align: middle;
}
See a fiddle with demo.
Try this:
HTML:
<div class="center"></div>
CSS:
.center {
width: 300px;
height: 300px;
position: absolute;
left: 50%;
top: 50%;
margin-left: -150px;
margin-top: -150px;
background-color: red;
}
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/WDth4/
Exactly Center an Image/Div Horizontally and Vertically:
http://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/exactly-center-an-imagediv-horizontally-and-vertically/
.mainCoverWrapper {
position: relative;
min-width:312px;
background:red
}
I'm trying to center a div with min-width of 312px and make it expand according to its dynamic content while keeping it centered.
Right now the min-with doesn't work at all because it needs a float. I can't use a float because I need the div centered on the page.
In other words, div starts out with margin auto with a width of 312px and expands with its added content while being centered. Is this possible?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
http://jsfiddle.net/FVmvA/
Here's a working example of the parent to follow the width of the child, and the child will expand according to the text given in it.
.myCoverWrapper {
border: 1px solid Peru;
margin:auto;
min-width: 200px;
max-width: 100%;
display: inline-block;
background: red;
}
.test {
height: 100px;
margin: 10px;
background: cyan;
}
This makes the parent div follow the width of the kid.
This however, will disallow you to "center" it. There's no way you can have both. This is because you cant center an image without knowing the width of the element.
The solution is to use jQuery, to add CSS in when necessary.
Here's an example. There's some bugs, but well, you have the general idea.
If you want the width to be fluid, your best bet is to set display: inline-block; on the to-be-centered element, and text-align: center; to the parent element.
See: CSS center display inline block?
Currently I'm working on a website for myself. I decided to go for a header content footer design where the footer shall be stuck to the bottom all the time. Hence I set up a wrapper with position: relative, containing the header (#top), content (#middle), and footer (#bottom). Bottom got position: absolute with top: 0.
I've also set height: 100% for html and body and a appropriate padding-bottom for #middle to ensure that my footer won't overlap #middle.
Please find a simplified sample version here: http://www.webdevout.net/test?0w
Here is the CSS in question:
* {
padding: 0;
margin: 0;
}
html, body {height: 100%}
#wrapper {
position: relative;
background-color: #ccc;
min-height: 100%;
}
#middle {
background-color: #900;
padding-bottom: 200px;
}
#top, #bottom {
width: 100%;
height: 200px;
background-color: #bb5;
}
#bottom {position: absolute; bottom: 0;}
Now here's my problem: my understanding of the box-model is, that one should be able to achieve the same (keeping the space for the footer) with margin-bottom instead of padding-bottom for #middle, but margin-bottom isn't applied to it. I've read that min-height doesn't consider padding, border or margin, but the padding is considered here while border and margin aren't.
FF and Chrome show different behaviors when margin-bottom is used instead of padding-bottom for #middle: while Chrome just ignores the margin, FF applies it below #wrapper. My general idea would have been that my container should grow to the total size of its content with min-height, including height + padding + border + margin of #middle, but obviously it just grows to overall size of #top + height of #middle + padding of #middle.
I wonder what is the correct behavior and why padding and margin aren't interchangeable to keep the space for the footer.
While an explanation would be much appreciated, I'd be also thankful for a link to a source which could help me. I'm sorry if this duplicates another post, but I didn't find something (neither here nor via Google) fitting my special problem.
Thank you!
i had faced same problem like u are facing.
You have to use this piece of code.
#middle {
display: table;
margin: 2% auto;
width: 100%;
}
use of display : table works for me to set margin from top and bottom.