The Goal
I'm practicing writing my own simple JavaScript slideshow plugin, and the intended method is to have all of the images -- all of which are the same size -- in the same location on the screen (so all having the same x and y values), but alter their z-indexes to shuffle them in front of or behind each other as necessary, cycling through each of them. The JavaScript is working well so far, but I'm not able to get the images to all layer on top of each other on the page -- they just stack, from the top of their container downward, one per line.
What I've Got
This is a simplified version of the relevant portion of my HTML:
<section>
<div class="images">
<img src="1">
<img src="2">
<img src="3">
</div>
</section>
And the CSS
.images {
height: 15em;
margin: 0 auto;
overflow: hidden;
width: 20em;
}
As you can see, it's not too complex. I'm at a loss as to where to go from here, though. The only way I've been able to get the images to layer the way I want is to apply position: absolute; and top: 0; to the images, but that also throws them outside of their div, and then applying that to the div itself causes the whole layout to go into chaos. So if anyone has any advice, I'd greatly appreciate it! :)
Add position:relative to your .images class. Absolutely positioned elements are positioned with respect to their closest positioned ancestor element.
You need to apply position: relative to the div. That way the images use their parent div as a reference.
One option would be to use the JavaScript to modify the display and visibility CSS attributes to show and hide the images.
visibility: hidden means the element is not visible, but it still takes up space in the page flow.
display: none means the element takes up no space in the page flow.
I've seen browsers behave oddly when display is none but visibility is hidden. I've found it's best to switch both.
For the image you want to be visible, set display: block and visibility: visible
Related
I'm asking this for learning purposes; there aren't any negative aspects on this behaviour, but I just wonder if this could have any negative consequences in the future.
So I have a container div: content_wrap, which has two other div's: side_bar and main_content. The container div is 980px width, and is used to center its contents using margin-left and margin-right.
It's doing this correctly, however, when I was debugging the page (in Firefox), I noticed that the browser renders the div as being 0x0px and renders the parent div off-screen. However, it does position the child divs correctly. See this JSFiddle for an example: http://jsfiddle.net/7fsXp/7/
I Googled this and most of the answers have something to do with floats and are solved by using clear:both, but I don't use any floats. I did notice that if I change the main_content div from position:absolute; to position:relative;, the content_wrap is displayed correctly. Or I can fix it by setting a height for content_wrap.
I don't actually need to be able to see the content_wrap, so there isn't really a problem, as it is doing its job in means of centering the child divs. I just wondered if it would be a bad practice to leave it like this? Is it a bad thing, or does it matter?
Try adding other elements to this HTML and enjoy the horror :D
There are actually many things in your code, that I wouldn't do. First of all, when an element is with position: absolute or position: fixed its layout is "ignored" by other elements or in other words cannot "push" any element and that is why your container is having 0 height. It's like they are ethereal (best explanation ever, I know).
You should check this article on positioning -- http://css-tricks.com/absolute-relative-fixed-positioining-how-do-they-differ/
The fact that they are in the place you expect them to be is that there are actually no other elements in the HTML and the absolute element is positioned relatively to the body and so is the fixed one (but that's what elements with position: fixed always do). Looks what happens when I add some other content to the parent div -- http://jsfiddle.net/7fsXp/13/
So long story short - you shouldn't form your layout with absolute or fixed elements if you can do it without them.
position: fixed and position: absolute take the elements out of the flow, so using either of these positions on all child divs will collapse the parent div entirely.
If you have content below a collapsed div, it will flow up and over/under that content like this.
You don't need to position the main_content div absolutely, but you'll need to change a few things to top align the sidebar and main_content.
DEMO
Since sidebar is fixed, it's using the document, not the container div as a reference for top, while main_content would use the body (unless you add position: relative to the container). Getting rid of the body's default padding/margin will fix the small alignment difference.
body {
padding: 0;
margin: 0;
}
#main_content {
//remove position: absolute;
margin-top:70px; //top: 70px won't work unless you specify position
}
It depends on what you are willing to do, but because the default position for div is position: static; changing the position: relative; will avoid the collapse of parent div.
I'm working on a page for a class, just to display things (you can see them sorted by chapter in the body) but I originally had a list on the left that I used initially that just listed them all, and I wanted to keep it.
Problem is, once I started adding more CSS - I don't know where exactly - the area on the left just became completely unclickable. You can't highlight the text, you can't click any of it - nothing. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what is causing this.
link to the site here
here is a pastebin link showing everything I have.
thank you, i really appreciate any help.
The .content div overlaps entire body area, because of "position: absolute;"
Add z-index: 9999; to #menu in your CSS and it should be clickable.
Other way is to use "position: relative; float: left;" to both .content and #menu, but you have to be carefull with their widths. Their sum of widths (including padding and margin and border) should be less or equal to the container width. In your case it should be body tag (actually a don't see body tag in your html).
That's because your .content div is using position: absolute; so it's taken out of the page flow and overlapping your sidebar because it has no width set (block elements span the full width of your viewport unless you give it a fixed width) ... just add a negative z-index value to your .content div and it should work fine.
More on z-index
My website http://dekomkommertijd.nl has a banner with moving clouds that I made with CSS animated (moving) div's. They enter left and when they leave the screen at the right side they create a horizontal scrollbar. Everything works as I want to, except I don't want the scrollbar, except for the content within my content div (canvas - with a width of 960px). Everything outside should be without a horizontal scrollbar and just leave the screen.
I tried several methods I found (mostly for static divs) but they don't work for my moving divs.
anybody knows how to fix this?
thanks.
Rick
The way you've described it suggests to me that you'd want your clouds and other content to overflow in different ways. The overflow is determined by the parent, so to handle the overflow differently you'd need to have two parents: one for the clouds, and one for the content.
If you choose to do it this way, setting the cloud parent to absolute positioning would take it out of the normal document flow so it doesn't interfere with the rest of your content. And setting the overflow makes it behave as you'd like.
width: 100%; /* Spans the whole document */
overflow-x: hidden; /* Hides overflow instead of displaying it */
position: absolute;
top: 0; left: 0;
Another solution would be handling the overflow identically for your clouds and other content. If you do it this way, you could just set it to be hidden on a mutual parent element, like the body.
This second solution might make more sense, as it's 1. simpler and 2. unlikely that you'll have anything other than the clouds overflowing.
Remove overflow-y: hidden from the following code:
html {
overflow-y: scroll; /* Remove This Line */
-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;
}
and apply following style on the body:
body {
overflow-y: auto;
overflow-x: hidden;
}
Hopefully, it will work.
Just a quick question regarding CSS positioning. I have several "segments" on my site which are 100% wide (fills the screen), and I want them floated next to each other. So only the first one will be visible, the other ones will be off-screen. I've tried playing around with positions and the overflow property without luck. Right now they just pop down below each other instead of floating.
This would work perfectly if the elements did not exceed the screen width, but as they do, they just pop down as I said earlier. I've tried setting a huge width to the "wrapper", something like 99999px. And then setting the segments to 100%, but that will just fill the whole 99999px width instead of the screen.
Any ideas?
JSFiddle example: http://jsfiddle.net/9xGPb/
Do you mean like this?
Example Fiddle: here
I used my favourite alternative to floats, inline-blocks
if you actually take it out of the fiddle it has some pretty (gaudy?) colours which show that it allows for the min-width: 900px; on the centered_content div to work too, and I removed the absolute positioning for the menu so the content would go below it, for demo only but you may find it useful..
let me know if any good or if you have any questions
Updated with some jQuery and to make corrections for default word-spacing
New Example: here
re: the IE6/7 hack rightly mentioned in the comments;
.segment {
display: inline-block;
overflow: hidden;
width: 0;
}
.segment {display: inline !ie7;}
needn't be a "parse hack" if that's your preference as long as that second rule is given to [lte IE 7] somehow, and separately at that it cannot be combined into the original rule with the * hack or anything, it won't work.. has to be in a separate ruleset.
I discovered word-spacing might be a problem if relying on width to hide, the natural behaviour of inline blocks is to put 3-4px between the elements like the space in between words, the workaround to this is to correct the word-spacing on the wrapper
.segment-wrapper {
white-space: nowrap;
word-spacing: -4px;
}
then restore it normal for the actual content divs, same place as you would restore the normal wrapping behaviour
.centered_content {
width: 900px;
margin: 0px auto;
background: #fcf;
white-space: normal;
word-spacing: 0;
}
and last, apart from this was fun.. there's 2 effects in that new fiddle - uncomment and comment the other.. forgive me I was playing! :)
The meaning of float is to try to float to the right or left unless there is not room for it.
This means that you cannot ever float an element off the page.
If you need to keep the element off the page, you will need to use a different positioning mechanism like position: absolute.
It sounds like you're creating a horizontal one-page portfolio. I've recently been working on something similar.
Using your fiddle I've set the .segment class to
.segment {width:90%;height:90%;position:absolute;}
and then offset each left positioning further off the screen
#home {background-color:red;left:5%;}
#work {background-color:yellow;left:105%;}
#portfolio {background-color:green;left:205%;}
#contact {background-color:blue;left:305%;}
http://jsfiddle.net/9xGPb/2/
I also added some jQuery logic to switch views for the divs.
I'm still not entirely sure which segments you want to start off the page but this jsfiddle uses positioning to shove the #two div off to the right: http://jsfiddle.net/EdAZP/1/
Which part of your example did you want to start off the page?
Did you try to just hide the other elements and toggle them with some javascript (jQuery is much easier)?
http://api.jquery.com/toggle/
Here's a question that's been haunting me for a year now. The root question is how do I set the size of an element relative to its parent so that it is inset by N pixels from every edge? Setting the width would be nice, but you don't know the width of the parent, and you want the elements to resize with the window. (You don't want to use percents because you need a specific number of pixels.)
Edit
I also need to prevent the content (or lack of content) from stretching or shrinking both elements. First answer I got was to use padding on the parent, which would work great. I want the parent to be exactly 25% wide, and exactly the same height as the browser client area, without the child being able to push it and get a scroll bar.
/Edit
I tried solving this problem using {top:Npx;left:Npx;bottom:Npx;right:Npx;} but it only works in certain browsers.
I could potentially write some javascript with jquery to fix all elements with every page resize, but I'm not real happy with that solution. (What if I want the top offset by 10px but the bottom only 5px? It gets complicated.)
What I'd like to know is either how to solve this in a cross-browser way, or some list of browsers which allow the easy CSS solution. Maybe someone out there has a trick that makes this easy.
The The CSS Box model might provide insight for you, but my guess is that you're not going to achieve pixel-perfect layout with CSS alone.
If I understand correctly, you want the parent to be 25% wide and exactly the height of the browser display area. Then you want the child to be 25% - 2n pixels wide and 100%-2n pixels in height with n pixels surrounding the child. No current CSS specification includes support these types of calculations (although IE5, IE6, and IE7 have non-standard support for CSS expressions and IE8 is dropping support for CSS expressions in IE8-standards mode).
You can force the parent to 100% of the browser area and 25% wide, but you cannot stretch the child's height to pixel perfection with this...
<style type="text/css">
html { height: 100%; }
body { font: normal 11px verdana; height: 100%; }
#one { background-color:gray; float:left; height:100%; padding:5px; width:25%; }
#two { height: 100%; background-color:pink;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div id="one">
<div id="two">
<p>content ... content ... content</p>
</div>
</div>
...but a horizontal scrollbar will appear. Also, if the content is squeezed, the parent background will not extend past 100%. This is perhaps the padding example you presented in the question itself.
You can achieve the illusion that you're seeking through images and additional divs, but CSS alone, I don't believe, can achieve pixel perfection with that height requirement in place.
If you are only concerned with horizontal spacing, then you can make all child block elements within a parent block element "inset" by a certain amount by giving the parent element padding. You can make a single child block element within a parent block element "inset" by giving the element margins. If you use the latter approach, you may need to set a border or slight padding on the parent element to prevent margin collapsing.
If you are concerned with vertical spacing as well, then you need to use positioning. The parent element needs to be positioned; if you don't want to move it anywhere, then use position: relative and don't bother setting top or left; it will remain where it is. Then you use absolute positioning on the child element, and set top, right, bottom and left relative to the edges of the parent element.
For example:
#outer {
width: 10em;
height: 10em;
background: red;
position: relative;
}
#inner {
background: white;
position: absolute;
top: 1em;
left: 1em;
right: 1em;
bottom: 1em;
}
If you want to avoid content from expanding the width of an element, then you should use the overflow property, for example, overflow: auto.
Simply apply some padding to the parent element, and no width on the child element. Assuming they're both display:block, that should work fine.
Or go the other way around: set the margin of the child-element.
Floatutorial is a great resource for stuff like this.
Try this:
.parent {padding:Npx; display:block;}
.child {width:100%; display:block;}
It should have an Npx space on all sides, stretching to fill the parent element.
EDIT:
Of course, on the parent, you could also use
{padding-top:Mpx; padding-bottom:Npx; padding-right:Xpx; padding-left:Ypx;}