I do want my website to stay responsive, the sidebar should still go under the content when the screen is too small, but there's a few span* classes I'm using that I don't want going to 100% width when the screen is too small. Is there a way I can still use the span* class (it's a really easy way to position things) but explicitly say that they should not be responsive; either on the container, or row, or each span, whatever works.
a bit short for explanation, code is missing.
have you tried using selector: span[class*="span"]{} to filter the class you want ?
I don't think you can have it both ways.
Either your bootstrap grid is responsive or it isn't.
This is because all bootstrap knows is whether or not the responsive initialization snippet has been called. If it has, then it changes the spans to make them responsive.
If you want a way around this, I would copy the styles from the span class that you want applied to your unresponsive sections and then make a new class with those styles.
So, if you wanted to make an additional unresponsive .span3 you could just copy the relevant styles and make your own classes. You would need to set the width, float, and margins. In this case width: 220px;, float: left; , and add a .margin-right: 20px;. The widths can be found in bootstrap.css file.
I also attached a fiddle for reference -- http://jsfiddle.net/c86kE/
Related
I'm trying to make my Wordpress nav truly responsive. It's responsive in the sense that once it hits 767px, it switches to a mobile friendly nav, all good.
What I'd like to do though, is make it so that for any screen size between 767px and infinity, it scales up and down to fit appropriately.
Currently, I am managing it by using media query breakpoints, and adjusting the font size and anchor padding.
I've also tried various nav plugins, and they don't seem to do handle this the way I want either.
Is there a way to set some CSS attributes as a percentage, so that as I slowly change the width of the browser, it dynamically adjusts the nav so that it takes up the full width of the nav bar but doesn't wrap onto two lines??
www.thecyclery.net.au
Thanks!
Jon
You can use flexbox to layout your nav.
the key i found was adding flex-grow to your list item.
.flex-item {
flex-grow:1;
}
You will have to tailor your current css to suit. And by that i mean you might have to remove some of your styling from your links and add them to the li instead.
my example:
http://codepen.io/partypete25/pen/YWwXXY
learn more here:
https://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/a-guide-to-flexbox/
Hi I don't know how to solve this...
I want the element marked with a red rectangle in the images to move depending on the size of the screen ALIGNED to the containers below ALL THE TIME. I'm making a responsive website with the different media screen instances but I want to be sure that this element keeps in the same alignment all the time. How do I do that? No JS please.
http://www.awesomescreenshot.com/image/58399/669844960fdd9761084f64bae5d29112
since you haven't provided any code for what you have so far its difficult to help you. However, I think I understand what you need and you need to specify some width constraints to accomplish this:
you will need a container inside the header that will have the same width as the content below. Here is a working fiddle
css {
width: X%;
}
I'm having trouble working with Twitter bootstrap 3 to render a web page composed of different slices. The end-product would be a page composed of rows containing img-responsive slices that stay in their respective rows (i.e. They don't wrap)
But Bootstrap CSS does something funny with the images. They're nested in the predictable structure, container>row>col-xs-12>Images, but even when I set the image margin: 0;, there's still a small gap between adjacent images. Moreover, I can't get the rows with multiple slices to stay on the same row no matter what (because the page makes no sense if slices wrapped to a new line) and still be "responsive."
Alternatively, if someone could instruct me how to set up a responsive image map (or shoot me a solid link), I could try that route.
You need to put each image in its own col-xs-*, override col-xs padding, and add max-width:100% to the img. Also, don't get confused by .row's usage. It's not meant to restrict items to a visual row, and doesn't. Frankly, the name is misleading. Just use the single .row within the .container, and make sure your col-xs's add up to 12 and you'll avoid unwanted wrapping.
Here's an example: http://www.bootply.com/aYOdYaV4Gq
.col-xs-3{
padding-right:0px;
padding-left:0px;
}
.img{
max-width:100%;
}
In my bootply, I've actually added classes with these attributes rather than overwriting the bootstrap classes like above. Either works, but adding custom classes means it's easier to turn it on and off later.
This probably was answered somewhere, but I can't find it :s
My question is about dynamic resizing of divs based in percentages.
Please look at code example below for the examples and possible solutions I made.
I ask if there is a better way to do resizing?
More detailed explanation:
Say I am writing a plugin that people can insert in their pages. (Imagine login form).
I go ahead and design the plugin's divs. I use media queries to achieve desired look for different devices. I work on a div straight inside of a 'body' element.
I use percentages for design (I like percentages). Say I set div to 80% width.
Now I give this plugin to the user. User goes ahead and puts the plugin's div inside of another
div that is 100px in width. Now everything looks awful. (80% of 100px is not a lot [80px]).
And of course I want user to put my plugin inside of whatever small-width divs that he have.
The solutions I saw so far to this problem was to create a holder div of certain width - say hardcode 300px. (ex - jQuery UI's Datepicker div; Meteor's login widget div). And then code to it always knowing the 300px width that I set before is not going to change.
But I don't know how good of a solution this is.
Moreover if I decide to go with hard-coding width, my plugin would need width of ~ 1000px. Because I want div to resize with media queries.
And if I go with hard-coding width (say holder div of 1000px width) and put it on a page, the page will have horizontal scrolling. And you cannot simply hide holder div (parent div) and have child to show at the same time. So this requires setting position:relative for holder (parent) div, putting it outside of window, and use same for child div - position:relative with same offset in opposite direction of parent offset.
I hope I am being clear so far and have not confused you!
A code example to illustrate what I am talking about:
http://jsbin.com/ifawez/18/edit
#cimmanon's comment cleared things out for me.
The problem is with lack of HTML/CSS "tools" available at the moment. Since responsiveness came into play fairly recently there are not a lot of CSS-native tools to accommodate changes in dimensions.
For instance media-queries exclusively work with width of window/document and not of other elements such as divs.
The solution I currently employ is using Javascript to determine width of a div and resize accordingly.
What I resize is the number of columns I want to display (I use Multi-Column module as suggested by cimmanon) which is pretty stable on webkit browsers. Since it is all done in Javascript (and jQuery's Sizzle) I keep an array of sizes like so:
var widthArray = [
{min:0, max:250, columns:1, secondary:false},
{min:251, max:350, columns:1, secondary:true },
{min:351, max:479, columns:1, secondary:true },
//more div sizes
];
// more code here
$(element).css({
"column-count": object.columns,
"-moz-column-count": object.columns,
"-webkit-column-count": object.columns
});
This is sort of like media-queries, but allows to work with width of html elements, not screen size alone.
Additionally I follow the way jQuery UI displays its components: using position relative/absolute.
.outer_div {
position: relative;
}
.inner_div_with_elements {
position: absolute;
z-index: 1010;
width: 99%;
float: left;
overflow: hidden;
...
}
.inner_components_displayable {
position: relative;
display: block;
}
.inner_components_hidden {
display: none;
}
So in Summary:
Media queries alone work with size of screen, and resizing of any inner element can be done in percentages to the screen size. They can be of huge help, but you turn into making your components work either with percentages based off screen, or specifying something like min-height and !important (as suggested by #Octavian)
Javascript manipulation of elements is currently easier, but is a costlier alternative (jQuery SIzzle is pretty slow)
A lot of libraries (ex. jQuery UI) use Javascript together with position relative/absolute to make sure their components/plug-ins will work nicely on all users' screen sizes.
I ended up combining position with javascript to emulate media-queries and multi-column design at the same time for responsiveness.
Thanks everyone who participated!
If I am reading this correctly, the main issue here is that it can potentially become too small based on where the code is located.
So why not just add a min-width property with !important? That way you can still base the size off of the parent container, but be sure that it doesn't get too small and ugly.
Potentially, you could even have a script to base the width off of the parent div and the min-width off of the screen size.
But I am not really sure whether the idea is that I put one <div class="container"> around my whole page, or whether I should nest them. I think I see both in various examples.
Anywhere you want a div that is centered with a width of 940px. It is also used in the navbar to position elements. There are no hard and fast rules.
If it was only meant to be used once they would have given it an id instead of a class
I've been trying to figure out the same thing -- I think the idea is that .container is intended to be a fixed width div -- 940px in the default css -- whereas .container-fluid is, well, fluid. At least that's what I've sussed from looking at the css and the (sparse) documentation.