I have a lot of css looking like this:
.T {
background-size: 1.8rem, auto;
background-image: url('./Images/ListIcons.svg#T');
padding-left: 1.8rem;
}
Where ListIcons.svg is a stacking of images (amongst which one "is" T).
I can then use such class on text containing node like:
<label class="T">some text</label>
which renders like:
<T image>some text
It doesn't work in Chrome anymore, and will stop working in other browser soon (standard gurus had to fix a issue with SVG/CSS*).
I hear one should just go back to the good* old sprite maps technique.
As far as I know, there's no way to clip a background image to the portion wanted, let alone while using background-size.
Is there a workaround?
http://robert.ocallahan.org/2012/10/impending-doom-for-svg-stacks-sort-of.html
not good imho
EDIT:
I figured out I could somehow hide portions of the backgroud instead of clipping it.
It goes like this:
.ButtonType {
background-size: 0.1rem 100%, 100% 100%, auto 1.8rem;
background-position: left center, 1.9rem center, calc(-6 * 1.8rem + 0.1rem) center;
background-image: url('./Images/White.png'), url('./Images/White.png'), url('./Images/ListIcons.svg');
}
(6th image with a size of 1.8/1.8 rem padded 0.1rem from left + concealment of "non 6th image" using white images).
It's long, color dependent (wherever background is another color, one have to rewrite the almost exact same two line), and has to be repeated for every single use of the sprite map as a background.
Simply put: it sucks (yet it works).
I feel like going back to 1 image = 1 file, and not trying to reduces # files accesses.
Related
I've run into an issue when using background-position in a div along with background-size: cover. There seem to be some quirks in the browsers calculations, so I'm looking for a reliable way of doing this.
More detail...
The use case is mostly visual and everything in the interface should scale nicely. In the past I've has good results by either using rem or em units for everything.
At the start or when the screen size changes I'm measuring the available screen space and then set an appropriate font-size on the container. Something like this...
const size = calculateSize();
$("#container").css({fontSize: size + 'px'});
Generally, it works very nicely. Everything scales and positions itself properly - or does it?
I recently added a graphic button - a with a background image.
.button {
background-image: url("img/button.png");
background-size: cover;
width: 10em;
height: 4.5em;
cursor: pointer;
}
.button:hover {
background-position-x: -100%;
}
I did also try background-position-x: -10em, but I prefer the percentage notation as it takes care of itself if I resize the button image.
That's when I started noticing a small, but annoying problem. When I hover over the button, it moves just a little bit. The amount varies depending on how large the available space is. It's usually only a pixel or 2 at the most. It seems equally affected by Chrome, Firefox, and Edge.
It might not seem like much, and maybe I can just accept it as a feature, but I'm wondering if anyone else has experienced this and found a way around it.
One likely solution would be to just use separate images for the different button states, but I prefer keeping the number of images to a minimum.
UPDATE: So, I just tried creating 2 separate images, and then changed the CSS accordingly...
.button {
background-image: url("img/button0.png");
background-size: cover;
width: 10em;
height: 4.5em;
cursor: pointer;
}
.button:hover {
background-image: url("img/button1.png");
/* background-position-x: -100%; */
}
This does make the wobble movement go away, so I'm pretty confident it's some specific issue with how the browser is interpreting background-position-x. Being such a small movement, I suspect it's some sort of rounding error.
Minimal, Reproducible Example:
In an attempt to ensure I wasn't just seeing things, I put together a jsFiddle that illustrates the problem...
https://jsfiddle.net/xtempore/nfLh86sm/8/
I made a simplified version of the button image. It's just black on the left half and very pale grey on the right. Then I put it into 4 different divs each with a different font-size.
When you hover, you should just see the rectangle change from black to grey. And on the 1st and 3rd ones it does. But check out the 2nd and 4th ones! When you hover, there's a sneaky little bit of black appears on the left-hand edge.
The units used are pretty straightforward in this case. The problem seems to appear with odd-numbered pixels. In my case sometimes these font-sizes will also include decimals (e.g. 15.45px).
This problem demonstrates an issue with rendering in the common browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Edge), but I managed to find an alternate method that gives the desired result.
Instead of using...
background-size: cover;
... you can use a percentage, for example ...
background-size: 200%;
If your base image is 2 sprites wide, i.e. contains two images for different states side-by-side, then the specified background-size should be 200%. Similarly, if you have 3 times the size, 300%, and so on.
This gives the desired scaling, even as the div changes size.
You can see that the problem is resolved in the example fiddle by just changing that value from cover to 200%.
With problem: https://jsfiddle.net/xtempore/nfLh86sm/8/
No problem: https://jsfiddle.net/xtempore/2vcg4h1L/
I hope this helps someone else who is getting these weird side-effects.
I'm trying to make a website and I want an image (1920 × 1080) to cover the whole page. I used:
background-repeat: no-repeat;
background-size: 100%;
And it looks fine. But when I resize my browser and pull it down vertically, the image does not come with it. I want my picture to resize for example like this site: https://www.okainsbayseafood.co.nz/ (when you resize the browser vertically the image goes with it)
Sorry for my English and if I sound stupid
my webpage
Switch background-size from 100% to cover:
background-size: cover;
This tells the browser that the image should fill the available space, and will alter the dimensions of the image to do so.
Note: If you are adding this CSS to an element that is not the body tag, you may need to add additional code to resize the element to which you are adding this background. This CSS will create the desired effect if added directly to the body element.
Actually you have many possibilities to get such a result:
The page you linked above uses so called breakpoints, where it loads a resized image based on the screen size. This is indeed a good idea in that case, because they use very large images, which would load forever on small screens and low bandwidth.
For you, as a beginner, it is probably better to firstly get some deeper knowledge into CSS and what you can do with just a single image, and after that you can opt in to optimisations like the site above. So for you something like that would probably work:
background-image: url("yourimage.jpg");
background-color: #cccccc; /* Used if the image can not be loaded */
height: 100vh; /* You must set a height. (unless you have child elements that take the entire space) */
background-position: center;
background-repeat: no-repeat;
background-size: cover; /* Resize the background image to cover the entire container */
Study that CSS code and make sure you understand what it does and what other options you have. You might play around with some values there and get some other results.
I got an Image which is 400px x 685px. In the website, i set it will only show 200px x 685px. I want to know how to show the whole image when the mouse hover the image and show another half of the image 200px x 685px to 400px x 685px? Thank you
So I think a part of your css may looks like:
.your-class {
background: url("[the path of your image]");
background-size: 200px 685px;
}
then for when the mouse hover the image:
.your-class:hover {
background-size: 400px 685px;
}
Note that if you're using the <img> tag itself in your .html file, then you should write width and height instead of background-size. Anyway The code above is somehow what developers do in css in this case. But obviously it really depends on how you've structured your HTML with div tags and also the classes you've given to these tags.
you achieve by set
.selector:hover
{
background-size: 100% 100%;
}
I think an acceptable solution would be to create a div in your html. In your style sheet (aka - css file) you should define it with width:200px, height:685px; the next thing you want to do is to set all divs tags (or any id you give this fella) a background-image:url("whatever.png");
Now, you should also use the background-position:right (or left, your choice).
whta will happen so far? Your div will show half an image.
Now you should use div:hover as a new set of rules in your css, and there also use the background-position:left/right (the one you didnt use).
Tell me if it works.
I've got a blueprint that I want to absolutely position divs on top of in order highlight certain rooms.
Using the alpha channel (rgba), I can still see the blueprint's "ink" underneath, but depending on the color saturation the drawing gets obscured.
I know that I can use background-blend-mode: multiply on the div that contains the blueprint in order to get the desired effect, but it applies it to the entire image because I have to specify the color and the image on the same div. This is hard to explain but easy to show, so I mocked it up with paint.net here:
Again, I can get the desired look using background-blend-mode but would apply it to the entire background image. I want the color from a div to multiply everything that is underneath it.
Well, I started off writing this question and found out that it is a browser support issue. I eventually found mix-blend-mode which is what will apply blending modes to everything "underneath" a div/element, unfortunately, Chrome (as of today) doesn't support it. Firefox, however, does. It is possible to turn it on in chrome going to chrome://flags/ and enable "experimental Web Platform features".
I found the following link pretty helpful in general, I just didn't realize that they talk about both background-blend-mode and mix-blend-mode. http://css-tricks.com/basics-css-blend-modes/
Here is a screenshot of it working in firefox:
An alternative is to use background-blend-mode, and play with the background-image properties.
Not a very nice solution, but can get you going before waiting from Chrome next release
.test {
width: 400px;
height: 200px;
background-image: linear-gradient(lightgreen, lightgreen), url(http://i.stack.imgur.com/DfAyW.png);
background-blend-mode: multiply;
background-size: 100px 140px, cover;
background-position: 10px 40px, 0px 0px;
background-repeat: no-repeat;
}
<div class="test"></div>
OK, I would like make my "compass" move so it will not block the text when the screen gets smallar.
http://www.mateuszrybinski.com/
The point is not to make the compass go over the text.
["I’d love to travel but...
I don’t have money.
I don't have time.
I can't speak the language.
What is your excuse?"]
#main_box {
margin: auto;
background-color: #c95242;
overflow: auto;
padding-top: 50px;
padding-bottom: 70px;
background-image: url(http://www.mateuszrybinski.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/half.png);
background-repeat: no-repeat;
how can I do it? The best solution would be if the compass was going down as the text was closing in.
If you want to customize the position of the compass image, I would recommend not applying it as a background image. Instead, make it show up inline so that your text will never overlap it, similar to what you've done with your portrait image.
That being said, I'm not totally sure where you want your image to show up and that heavily influences how the layout would be coded.
I don't know about the layout code, but have you considered instead changing the color of the compass so that the text is still legible when over the compass image? For example, the compass could be a slightly different shade of the red background color.