How to remove grid column padding in Semantic UI? - css

I am using Semantic UI grids, I have two columns and they have padding in between them. I have a padding which is good for most cases but I want to remove it in this case, how can I achieve this?
I want both the menu to be attached.

Without the code I can only assume you're talking about the two areas titled Shareito. If you want to remove the space between them without messing up the padding layout of the whole page you could add a negative margin, for example:
.pnl1 {
margin-right: -15px;
}
.pnl2 {
margin-left: -15px;
}
there are many other ways of doing this be it playing with the padding and margins, making the position absolute, etc etc... experiment.

Related

Is it possible to use grid layout to make a table with frozen/fixed header

The fact that grid layout allows me to build a table in CSS in a completely different way, I was trying to figure out a way to make a grid layout where the first row stays in view, whilst the rest scroll. Importantly without losing the grid behavior (a 'cell' with a lot of content should change the width and/or height of the entire column and/or row including the unscrollable first row).
Is this possible?
I recently came upon this codepen from #Nicolas CHEVOBBE:
https://codepen.io/nchevobbe/pen/bYZEqq?editors=0110
It shows an example of what you describe. Fixed header row using grid layout. It's quite simple for a feature that takes a lot of effort to code otherwise.
The essential part is using position sticky on header cells:
[role=columnheader] {
background-color: #F9F9FA;
position: sticky;
top: 0;
padding: 5px;
border-bottom: 1px solid #E3E4E4;
}
Hope it helps.

How do I keep images the same height/width when displaying them in a row in a responsive grid?

I have a %-based grid with a fixed-width (for the moment). The code is based off of this css-tricks article: http://css-tricks.com/dont-overthink-it-grids/
Works great until I have a column that has multiple responsive images in it that are the same size and need to be stacked next to each other (floated). Because of padding issues and what-not, I can not get all three images to come out the same width and height, despite the fact that they start that way. The last one is always taller. Here is a codepen showing the issue: http://codepen.io/joshmath/pen/dEuIv
Any help with this would be really appreciated. I've run into this issue before and always just end up hacking my way through it on a case-by-case basis. Thanks!
For whatever reason, if you remove the padding-right: 0 style from the last element, it fixes the issue.
It looks like you're trying to add spacing between the elements using padding. What I tried instead using the Chrome dev tools was to use a margin instead of padding, and then slightly reducing the width of your elements to around 29.5%. That seemed to work.
just add the following to your css. set the size to whatever you like and all images within your grid will remain that size, if they need to grow / shrink use height/width percents instead.
.grid img
{
width: 350px;
height: 400px;
}

CSS margins add up or are combined?

Let's assume that we have the following code:
<div style="margin-bottom:100px;">test</div>
<div style="margin-top:100px;">test</div>
I noticed that sometimes it creates 100px of margin between elements and sometimes it's 200px (when we use certain settings that I'm not familiar with). I can't find any information about that in the specification. What does this depend on?
If we have h1 and p in a blank document then the margin of h1 will be combined with the margin of p. They will not add up. Whichever is larger will be used.
This is happening because your margins are allowed to collapse. Certain margins may overlap (mostly block elements) and form a combined margin defined by the larger of the two values defined in the computed element style rules - that's what is happening here. This section from the CSS Box Model document explains it in detail.
Edit: As a point of interest, you can get around this (ie. break the collapsible margins) without breaking things (much?)in a couple of ways
Making the elements width: 100%; display: inline-block
Putting a height: 0; width: 0; overflow: hidden block in between the elements and putting a dot or something in it.
I forked ashley's fiddle to demonstrate. There are probably other methods but these are a quick a dirty way to get around collapsible margins if you need to.

Flexible div positioning

I have several divs on a page that all have the same width but different heights. They are all in one div, the #note1PreviewDiv. They all share the class .note, which has the following css code (among other):
.note{
width: 160px;
padding: 10px;
margin: 10px;
background: #e3f0ff;
float: left;
}
I thought with float: left; they would all automatically align so that they are well aligned among each other.
Here's a preview of what it looks like:
Current state http://posti.sh/img/ist.png
And here's what the positioning should be like:
Desired state http://posti.sh/img/soll.png
I think you get the idea. Somehow it seems to me the height of the leftmost div pushes the other divs in the second row to the right - but that's only guessing.
Thanks for your help!
Charles
You're not going to be able to do this easily with CSS only.
CSS3 has a new feature called column layout, but browser support is not great. IE9 and below don't support it.
See http://designshack.net/articles/css/masonry/ and the last example for CSS3 solution.
Have a look at these js / jQuery options for easier implementation and browser support:
masonry
isotope
vanilla masonry which doesn't need jQuery.
wookmark
The kind of lay out you want is really difficult (not possible?) without going for a column based approach and adding additional block elements to represent each column. This obviously won't work with a flexible number of columns if you want a dynamic layout based on screen size.
That said, you could always use JavaScript to dynamically place elements into columns, and get it to match the screen size.
Is the height of the parent container given a fixed value? If it is, try setting the height of the parent container to auto, and the overlow propery to hidden.

Three Variable-Width, Equally-Spaced DIVs? What About Four?

I have some very simple sub-navigation that I'm trying to build across the top of the content area within my web site, but CSS doesn't seem to have any simple solutions for such a common problem: I want either 3 or 4 equally spaced DIVs across the top of the page.
1) e.g. 3 Variable-Width, Equally-Spaced DIVs
[[LEFT] [CENTER] [RIGHT]]
2) e.g. 4 Variable-Width, Equally-Spaced DIVs
[[LEFT] [LEFT CENTER] [RIGHT CENTER] [RIGHT]]
My solution for the first problem with only 3 DIVs was to float the left and right DIVs, and then assign an arbitrary size to the middle DIV and give it "margin: 0 auto". That's not really a solution, but assuming there are no changes to the navigation, it gives a rough approximation of what I want the results to be.
The solution I have for the second problem with 4 DIVs is to simply center a DIV in the same way as before, but then float two DIVs within that, e.g.
[[LEFT] [[LEFT CENTER] [RIGHT CENTER]] [RIGHT]]
But again, this requires applying an arbitrary size to the middle DIV for alignment, and if any language or image changes are made to the site, alignment values will have to be recalculated. As well, it's simply an over-complicated solution that requires merging structure with presentation.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
EDIT 07/20/2012 5:00PM
Alright, I put the "table-cell" solution into place using percents, but I encountered another issue within my slightly more complex implementation: the issue at hand is that each DIV I was referring to is actually a container for two more DIVs which are icon-label pairs, inlined either by float or by display:inline-block.
e.g. http://jsfiddle.net/c3yrm/1/
As you can see, the final element in the list is displayed improperly.
Any help is again greatly appreciated!
EDIT 07/20/2012 7:16PM
Final solution with arttronics' help: http://jsfiddle.net/CuQ7r/4/
Reference: jsFiddle Pure CSS Demo
The solution was to float the individual breadcrumbs while using a simple formula to determine the percentage of breadcrumb width based on the number total breadcrumbs.
You could use percentages, then it just comes down to simple math:
[[LEFT=22%]2% margin><2% margin[LEFT CENTER=22%]2% margin><2% margin[RIGHT CENTER=22%]2% margin><2% marginRIGHT=22%]]=100%/??px
You could then specify a width for its container and use
display:inline;
to keep them inline.
Note: If you use borders to see what the divs are doing that will add space unnaccounted for so you would need to reduce your elements width by 1% or so OR just change their background colors.
ol {
width: 400px;
/*width: 800px;*/
display: table;
table-layout: fixed; /* the magic dust that ensure equal width */
background: #ccc
}
ol > li {
display: table-cell;
border: 1px dashed red;
text-align: center
}
like here: http://jsfiddle.net/QzYAr/
One way I've found to do it is using flex boxes (or inline-flex).
Here is a great explanation and example of how it can be done.
I think in the future, flex boxes will be the superior way of handling this sort of thing, but until other browsers catch up with Mozilla's way of thinking for how to use the flex-basis attribute (with min-content, max-content, fit-content, etc. as values), these flex boxes will continue to be problematic for responsive designs. For example, occasionally the inner content (a_really_really_long_word) can't fit in the allotted space when the window is squished down, and so sometimes some things might not be visible off to the right of the screen if you're not careful.
I think perhaps if you make use of the flex-wrap property, you might be able to ensure everything fits. Here is another example of how this might be done (in Mozilla browsers anyway).
I tend to use flex boxes for letterheads or tables where the width is fairly fixed (not too small) because they usually space themselves nicely; I tend to use nested float and inline-block objects for websites where the content must squish down very small (as suggested in some of the other answers here).

Resources