I don't feel that neat's grid is truly fluid. A fluid grid would scale well all the way from mobile to a large tv screen such as 1920x1080. However the way that neat and bitters end up working creates a $max-width variable which is default set at 1088. Even if you change this however there is a size that the website will stop being fluid, the max-size. I feel a fluid layout would constantly grow and shrink no matter the size of the screen.
Currently my way around this is by using fill-parent
.outer-container {
#include fill-parent;
}
This works but it feels hacky, is there no way using neat to properly create a fully fluid grid? Setting max-width has it's limit.
You don't need to use outer-container on an element that's supposed to fill the entire viewport. The only thing that mixin does is centering an element, clearing its floats and giving it a max-width.
In CSS, element are width: 100% by default, so there is no need to specify anything if that's the expected result.
The 'fluid' part of Neat refers to the fact that it does't use fixed widths, but percentages.
Related
I'm currently trying to make a responsive navbar (and it works, is responsive), but at some window size, it becomes too big. So I tried to use #media (max-width) to block its growth at some point. Unfortunately, when I use px to describe new fixed size, the navbar is now affected by scaling of the page (ctrl+mouse wheel), and I'm trying to avoid this behavior.
Is there a workaround to my problem?
Little hard to understand your question, but any good navbar should scale width wise for a page. I kinda sounds like you set the height style to a percentage rather than pixel amount.
<div style='height:80px;width:100%;'>Content</div>
This makes a horizontally scaling bar, with a constant heigjht
I have this ui-grid containing a random number of rows, but sure thing, it contains a great number of columns.
That said, I have a someway responsive-related problem: I want the grid to fill the remaining space of the page, in both width and height.
Apart from look-and-feel reasoning, the logic behind this is, on large screen devices, to allow the user to look at as much columns as possible and to extend the ui-grid height to the bottom, even if there are few rows displayed (btw, the page has no footer).
So, using a media query, I set width: 100% to the grid and manage to do the first part of the trick, but I'm struggling for the second part: the height.
I can't really make the gridWrapper height to expand the grid to the bottom, even if his width behaves correctly, without using Bootstrap but... the css struggle is real.
So I managed to have something near to what I want, but:
it's a ridicoulusly complicated, weak and un-reusable solution;
the row selection icon layout (the one on the left side of the rows) messes up as the row number grows, and i can't get rid of the selection feature by now;
the height of the grid is greater than the height of the page. I could set it to 90% instead of 100% to make it work... close, but not responsive, still.
Even if this scenario is the subject of many issues on the GitHub of the project, I'm asking you:
Is there a way to obtain what I want in a responsive, maybe bootstrap-inclusive way before I delve in a swamp made of display: table;, display: flex; & Co.?
give grid height: auto either in css or once grid is ready i mean once you have assigned array to gridOptions.data after that
$(".ui-grid").css("height", "auto");
I am affraid that only way how to achieve this is use of JS and setting css height and width programatically.
You have to set it when:
grid is created
window size changes
I have all my pages in one main div called "wrapper", and it is set to max-width: 1000px, which I need in order to make my site responsive.
The problem is, if I zoom in the layout breaks because of the max-width property. If i just set it to width instead of max-width it doesn't break (which makes sense), but I simply want to know if there is a solution for this ?
So, can I have max-width on the #wrapper without breaking the layout on zoom in?
Try using ems instead of pixels for your max width.
I'm trying to design a fluid / responsive web design using bootstrap. I'm trying to design the layout so that it'll fit in many devices. My question about setting height to a layout element, such as the header or footer. I've got it in pixels right now, but I would like to know if I should be using some other form of measurement.
I'm probably over-thinking this, but I'd like to make sure I'm doing this the right way. Thanks in advance!
Avoid setting a height whenever possible. You can often get around - and preferably so - using padding on the element in question, and/or margin values on the element's children.
If you absolutely need to define a height, use min-height so that it'll grow as its children take up more vertical space.
Many times people fall back to defining static height values because the elements are also using float and add height to get content flow and backgrounds back. This is rather poor practice and if this is the case you should consider looking into methods of clearing floats.
Probably pixels are the best option if you have a lot different devices. Other measurements to consider:
em (1em equals default font size)
% (of the screen)
em and % is the good solution for fluid / responsive web design.
I will suggest for media query css
#media only screen and (max-device-width: 480px) {
}
I've coded myself into a corner or I am overseeing something obvious here. I have a semi-fluid CSS layout that is designed like this:
header - 100% width at all times, contains a x-repeated background image
container - fluid (960px to 1200px, centered, contains two columns)
footer - 100% width at all times, contains a x-repeated background image
In almost all cases this works fine.
In summary, the design as a whole scales to any width, yet the content part only to 1200px at a maximum. However, since this concerns a photo site, sometimes images are wider than the container width of 1200px and the image breaks out of it. This is perfectly fine, I want the full image to be shown. However, I want the header and footer to scale to the widest element, in this case the image. This is not happening and is particularly troublesome when I resize the window to a width less than the image and then scroll to the right using the horizontal scrollbar: it leaves a clear gap on both the header and footer whilst I want them to stretch to at least the image/content width.
Simply setting the width to 100% is not enough as that concerns the viewport, not the content width. I can forcefully use min-width with a large value for the header and footer, but that leaves a horizontal scrollbar in normal resolutions. I could hide that scrollbar using overflow:hidden but that would chop of content and not display a scrollbar when the window is small.
To make a long story short, I guess what I want is that this layout would work as a table would work: if one column's content is wider than its size, it pushes all other rows to that same width. The largest width determines the total width. I prefer a solution without javascript, but am thinking it is either not possible or I am overseeing something very obvious?
100% width sets the element's width to 100% of the width of the element it is contained in. In your case, it seems this is the window itself (or the body element). To make the header and footer divs (I'm assuming you're using divs here) scale with the image, they will probably need to either be included in the same div that the image is in, or inside a div that the image div is also in, assuming that div is scaling to the correct width (don't assume it is scaling to fit the image).
However, in many cases using a table for your layout can be much cleaner, and will handle the type of horizontal scaling you're looking for without needing to resort to css hacks.
To make a long story short, I guess
what I want is that this layout would
work as a table would work
display: table on the common container of these elements, and display: table-row or table-cell on its children. This will not work in IE6, but clever things can be done with its CSS expression() hack to simulate this.
I would rather suggest, however, that you not set a maximum width at all, and allow the design to flow better according to the user's desired window size.