I'm using the Bootstrap 3 grid to hide/show nav bar content based on whether or not the user is using an extra small device.
I'm using .hidden-xs and .visible-xs classes. These classes appropriately hide/show the content, but I'm running into two problems:
(1) Hiding the content also shrinks the column spacing by .col-xs-5 because the div is hidden. I tried adding .visible-xs to a subsequent div and using .col-xs-5 to make up the empty space. This works, but only if I place content inside the divs. I just want the columns to be spaced out.
(2) On XS view size, the final item on the Nav bar "Nav" jumps to the next row. I have only accounted for 12 total columns.
See this JSFiddle. I'm trying to nly show "Welcome" on large view and show nothing on XS view.
I here's an idea, you can try instead of adding content. This CSS trick uses :before and :after CSS pseudo-classes.
.no_content {
display: block;
content: "";
width: 151px;
height: 35px;
background: transparent url(tape.png) 0 0 no-repeat;
}
<div class="no_content"></div>
I would look at the grid system further. I believe there is an offset that you can use to offset the div like this:
<div class="row">
<div class="col-xs-5 col-xs-offset-5></div>
<div class="col-xs-2></div>
</div>
Use the pull-right bootstrap class instead of trying to make empty div's fill in the space.
Completely remove the div you added in item (1) to "make up the space". On the div containing "Nav" set the class as pull-right col-xs-1. So the code from your JSFiddle becomes:
<div class="container">
<div class="row" id="header">
<div class="col-xs-5" id="brand-wrapper">
<div class="brand">Brand</div>
</div>
<!-- Hidden on XS Devices -->
<div class="hidden-xs col-xs-5">
<p>
Welcome
</p>
</div>
<!-- Nav -->
<div class="pull-right col-xs-1" id="toggle-wrapper">
<p>Nav</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
I have a design which is that of rows consisting of two blocks.
http://jsfiddle.net/dhxr25m6/
<div class="homepageBlockRow">
<div class="homepageBlock">
<img src="http://s1059327.instanturl.net/images/HomeTiles/BigJob.jpg" alt="">
</div>
<div class="homepageBlock homepageBlockText orangeBackground" style="height: 372px;">
...
</div>
<div style="clear: both;"></div>
</div>
<div class="homepageBlockRow">
<div class="homepageBlock homepageBlockText greyBackground" style="height: 372px;">
...
</div>
<div class="homepageBlock">
<img src="http://s1059327.instanturl.net/images/HomeTiles/Rental.jpg" alt="">
</div>
<div style="clear: both;"></div>
</div>
The page looks good on a full size monitor but on tablet resolutions the images are about half the height as the text blocks.
I tried scaling up the text block to match the row height, but that doesn't work when the image is smaller.
What would be a good way to scale things so that the images and text are always the same height?
CSS3 has object-fit property that can achieve this (while retaining the aspect ratio).
Just add the following code to the css for the image:
width:100%;
height:100%;
object-fit:cover;
object-position: 0 0;
FYI, I changed the structure of the div definitions a bit and added some height/width/float attributes and you can see a demo here (fiddle doesn't seem to run my code for some reason as mentioned in the comments): object-fit-solution
RESPONSIVE DESIGN:
For mobile devices, you will need to write media queries.
Some pointers for that:
1) make the clearfix div to float to left
2) remove floats on image and text blocks. Also make the width to 100%.
My problem can be better understood by the image below.
I have several div elements (div A) which have a variable size that depends on their content.
They are displayed inblock inside a larger container with a max-with defined(the large outer rectangle without a name).
Everything works fine until I had inside divs A two other divs (B and C) which I what that look like the image.
I haven´t been successful. I've tried several combinations of css properties like display, margin, padding, float... negative margins... tables...
Any help would be welcome.
Update
the code looks like the example:
html
<div style="max-width: 800px;">
<div class="div_a">
<div class="div_b">
short text
</div>
<div class="div_c">
short text
</div>
</div>
<div class="div_a">
<div class="div_b">
looooong text
</div>
<div class="div_c">
looooong text
</div>
</div>
<div class="div_a">
<div class="div_b">
huuuuuge text
</div>
<div class="div_c">
huuuuuge text
</div>
</div>
</div>
css
.div_a{
display: inline;
}
.div_b{
display: block; /* doesn't work*/
}
.div_c{
display: block; /* doesn't work*/
}
If I understand correctly, this should do it:
.div_a{
display: inline-block;
}
:)
...assuming you don't have other styles, besides border and spacing properties.
A fiddle example here
I want to create alternating 100% colored blocks. An "ideal" situation is illustrated as an attachment, as well as the current situation.
Desired setup:
Currently:
My first idea was to create an div class, give it a background color, and give it 100% width.
.block {
width: 100%;
background: #fff;
}
However, you can see that this obviously doesn't work. It's confined to a container area. I tried to close the container and that didn't work either.
The container class is intentionally not 100% width. It is different fixed widths depending on the width of the viewport.
If you want to work with the full width of the screen, use .container-fluid:
Bootstrap 3:
<body>
<div class="container-fluid">
<div class="row">
<div class="col-lg-6"></div>
<div class="col-lg-6"></div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-lg-8"></div>
<div class="col-lg-4"></div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-lg-12"></div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
Bootstrap 2:
<body>
<div class="row">
<div class="span6"></div>
<div class="span6"></div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="span8"></div>
<div class="span4"></div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="span12"></div>
</div>
</body>
QUICK ANSWER
Use multiple NOT NESTED .containers
Wrap those .containers you want to have a full-width background in a div
Add a CSS background to the wrapping div
Fiddles: Simple: https://jsfiddle.net/vLhc35k4/ , Container borders: https://jsfiddle.net/vLhc35k4/1/
HTML:
<div class="container">
<h2>Section 1</h2>
</div>
<div class="specialBackground">
<div class="container">
<h2>Section 2</h2>
</div>
</div>
CSS: .specialBackground{ background-color: gold; /*replace with own background settings*/ }
FURTHER INFO
DON'T USE NESTED CONTAINERS
Many people will (wrongly) suggest, that you should use nested containers. Well, you should NOT.
They are not ment to be nested. (See to "Containers" section in the docs)
HOW IT WORKS
div is a block element, which by default spans to the full width of a document body - there is the full-width feature. It also has a height of it's content (if you don't specify otherwise).
The bootstrap containers are not required to be direct children of a body, they are just containers with some padding and possibly some screen-width-variable fixed widths.
If a basic grid .container has some fixed width it is also auto-centered horizontally.
So there is no difference whether you put it as a:
Direct child of a body
Direct child of a basic div that is a direct child of a body.
By "basic" div I mean div that does not have a CSS altering his border, padding, dimensions, position or content size. Really just a HTML element with display: block; CSS and possibly background.
But of course setting vertical-like CSS (height, padding-top, ...) should not break the bootstrap grid :-)
Bootstrap itself is using the same approach
...All over it's own website and in it's "JUMBOTRON" example:
http://getbootstrap.com/examples/jumbotron/
This is how you can achieve your desired setup with Bootstrap 3:
<div class="container-fluid">
<div class="row"> <!-- Give this div your desired background color -->
<div class="container">
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-12">
... your content here ...
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
The container-fluid part makes sure that you can change the background over the full width. The container part makes sure that your content is still wrapped in a fixed width.
This approach works, but personally I don't like all the nesting. However, I haven't found a better solution so far.
There is a workaround using vw. Is useful when you can't create a new fluid container.
This, inside a classic 'container' div will be full size.
.row-full{
width: 100vw;
position: relative;
margin-left: -50vw;
left: 50%;
}
After this there is the sidebar problem (thanks to #Typhlosaurus), solved with this js function, calling it on document load and resize:
function full_row_resize(){
var body_width = $('body').width();
$('.row-full').css('width', (body_width));
$('.row-full').css('margin-left', ('-'+(body_width/2)+'px'));
return false;
}
In bootstrap 4, you can use 'w-100' class (w as width, and 100 as 100%)
You can find documentation here:
https://getbootstrap.com/docs/4.0/utilities/sizing/
If you can't change the HTML layout:
.full-width {
width: 100vw;
margin-left: -50vw;
left: 50%;
}
<div class="container">
<div class="row">
<div class="col-xs-12">a</div>
<div class="col-xs-12">b</div>
<div class="col-xs-12 full-width">c</div>
<div class="col-xs-12">d</div>
</div>
</div>
Demo: http://www.bootply.com/tVkNyWJxA6
Sometimes it's not possible to close the content container.
The solution we are using is a bit different but prevent a overflow because of the
firefox scrollbar size!
.full-width {
margin-top: 15px;
margin-bottom: 15px;
position: relative;
width: calc(100vw - 10px);
margin-left: calc(-50vw + 5px);
left: 50%;
}
Here is a example: https://jsfiddle.net/RubbelDeKatz/wvt9253q
Instead of
style="width:100%"
try using
class="col-xs-12"
it will save you 1 character :)
Sorry, should have asked for your css as well. As is, basically what you need to look at is giving your container div the style .container { width: 100%; } in your css and then the enclosed divs will inherit this as long as you don't give them their own width. You were also missing a few closing tags, and the </center> closes a <center> without it ever being open, at least in this section of code. I wasn't sure if you wanted the image in the same div that contains your content or separate, so I created two examples. I changed the width of the img to 100px simply because jsfiddle offers a small viewing area. Let me know if it's not what you're looking for.
content and image separate: http://jsfiddle.net/QvqKS/2/
content and image in same div (img floated left): http://jsfiddle.net/QvqKS/3/
I would use two separate 'container' div as below:
<div class="container">
/* normal*/
</div>
<div class="container-fluid">
/*full width container*/
</div>
Bare in mind that container-fluid does not follow your breakpoints and it is a full width container.
I'd wonder why someone would try to "override" the container width, since its purpose is to keep its content with some padding, but I had a similar situation (that's why I wanted to share my solution, even though there're answers).
In my situation, I wanted to have all content (of all pages) rendered inside a container, so this was the piece of code from my _Layout.cshtml:
<div id="body">
#RenderSection("featured", required: false)
<section class="content-wrapper main-content clear-fix">
<div class="container">
#RenderBody()
</div>
</section>
</div>
In my Home Index page, I had a background header image I'd like to fill the whole screen width, so the solution was to make the Index.cshtml like this:
#section featured {
<!-- This content will be rendered outside the "container div" -->
<div class="intro-header">
<div class="container">SOME CONTENT WITH A NICE BACKGROUND</div>
</div>
}
<!-- The content below will be rendered INSIDE the "container div" -->
<div class="content-section-b">
<div class="container">
<div class="row">
MORE CONTENT
</div>
</div>
</div>
I think this is better than trying to make workarounds, since sections are made with the purpose of allowing (or forcing) views to dynamically replace some content in the layout.
Though people have mentioned that you will need to use .container-fluid in this case but you will also have to remove the padding from bootstrap.
The following answer is not exactly optimal by any measure, but I needed something that maintains its position within the container whilst it stretches the inner div fully.
https://jsfiddle.net/fah5axm5/
$(function() {
$(window).on('load resize', ppaFullWidth);
function ppaFullWidth() {
var $elements = $('[data-ppa-full-width="true"]');
$.each( $elements, function( key, item ) {
var $el = $(this);
var $container = $el.closest('.container');
var margin = parseInt($container.css('margin-left'), 10);
var padding = parseInt($container.css('padding-left'), 10)
var offset = margin + padding;
$el.css({
position: "relative",
left: -offset,
"box-sizing": "border-box",
width: $(window).width(),
"padding-left": offset + "px",
"padding-right": offset + "px"
});
});
}
});
This must work (Mobile phone as well as Desktop screen):
class: alignfull and class: img-fluid will do the magic.
<div class="alignfull">
<img class="img-fluid" style="background-size: cover;
background-position: center ;
background-repeat: no-repeat;
height: auto;
min-width: 100%;
width: -moz-available; "
src="{{ $image->image }}" alt="An image">
</div>
I've got a set of divs in my page with some images inside of them. I would like them to be arranged horizontally instead of vertically ie:
X X X X X
X X X X X
Instead of
X
X
X
...
X
I've tried using the float, position:absolute properties but when using them the elements are "unattached" from the normal flow of the document and positioned outwith the content area.
What is the best way to position elements in such a way without altering the normal flow of the document?
Edit:
<div id="content" class="column"><div class="section">
<h6 id="choose">CHOOSE WHAT YOUR PLANB IS</h6>
<div class="region region-content">
<div class="canvas-wrapper">
<div class="canvas-triangle" id="one">
<canvas id="one"></canvas>
</div>
<div class="triangle-caption">One</div>
</div>
<div class="canvas-wrapper">
<div class="canvas-triangle" id="two">
<canvas id="two"></canvas>
</div>
<div class="triangle-caption">Two</div>
</div>
//ANOTHER 8 LIKE THAT
</div>
</div>
That's the code I have that creates the divs with the images in them. What I would like to do is arrange them as indicated above. Let me know if you need any more details.
Thanks
You don't need to use position, just use float:left for the divs you want in a row. Than you can use some element with clear:left under those divs, so the divs will not overlay this element or any other element further in the code...
edit:
To understand it, try this code with and without clear:
#wrap {width: 500px; background:#ffa;}
div.row {float:left; width:150px; height:150px; background:#aff}
div.right {float:right; height:250px;}
div.clear {clear:left; width: 250px; background:#faf}
<div id="wrap">
<div class="row"><p>div</p></div>
<div class="row"><p>div</p></div>
<div class="row"><p>div</p></div>
<div class="row"><p>div</p></div>
<div class="row right"><p>right</p></div>
<div class="clear"><p>clear</p></div>
<p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit...... </p>
</div>
Also notice the difference if you use clear with value left or both in this case.
Get rid of the absolute positioning. You should give us something more to play with if that's not enough help.
EDIT: See this jsfiddle and let me know what's not clear: http://jsfiddle.net/FH7cg/.