How to postion two centered DIVs overlapping each other and be responsive? - css

I am trying to position two DIVs over each other so that when the pointer hovers over the picture the top one fades to show the one underneath. I did this here: http://quaystreet.chrisloughnane.net/
I want make it responsive so the pictures would scale to the horizontal width of the mobile device. Which is no problem with one picture but as soon as I try to re-position the underneath DIV it breaks.
http://jsfiddle.net/chrisloughnane/f2NdQ/4/
Is it possible with just CSS to do what I want?
<div id='old'><img src="http://quaystreet.chrisloughnane.net/images/quay-street-old.jpg"/></div>
<div id='new'><img src="http://quaystreet.chrisloughnane.net/images/quay-street-new.jpg"/></div>
img {
max-width: 100%;
display: block;
margin: auto;
}

Here we go,
Live Example
CSS:
.images {
width: 100%;
position: relative;
max-width: 354px;
margin: 0 auto;
}
.images img {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
width: 100%;
max-width: 354px;
}
JavaScript:
$(document).ready(function() {
$('.images').on('mouseenter', function(){
$('.images .old').fadeOut(1000);
}).on('mouseleave', function(){
$('.images .old').fadeIn(1000);
});
});
HTML:
<div class="images">
<img class="new" src="http://quaystreet.chrisloughnane.net/images/quay-street-new.jpg">
<img class="old" src="http://quaystreet.chrisloughnane.net/images/quay-street-old.jpg">
</div>
Some things to you know:
To make each div in front of each other I am using position absolute.
I change the whole thing you did to make the div fadeOut, I think that way is more cleaner
I change your HTML to use the absolute position.
Your img will be width 100% and max-width 354px can be any value just need to be the maximum width your img will use. So when is less then 354px he will use the whole div with 100%.
Edit:
If you don't care about browser support you can use CSS3 transitions, beware no IE<10.
Here is the answer with transition

JavaScript it's not really necessary. You can achieve the same behaviour with a smooth CSS3 transition
.images {
position: relative;
margin: 0 auto;
}
.images img {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
width: 100%;
max-width: 354px;
-webkit-transition: opacity .8s linear 0s;
transition: opacity .8s linear 0s;
}
.images img:first-child {
z-index: 2;
}
.images img:first-child:hover {
opacity: 0;
}
example fiddle : http://jsfiddle.net/uNkY5/1/

Related

Transparency towards parent, but not towards another elements

Is there any way to make semi-transparent overlapping elements, from which only higher z-index will be visible? I would like the images to be transparent to the background, but not to the other pictures. Here is fiddle.
body {
background: white;
}
section {
height: 400px;
position: relative;
perspective: 500px;
}
img {
height: 300px;
left: 50%;
margin: -100px;
position: absolute;
top: 40%;
transform: rotateY(-30deg);
width: 200px;
}
img:nth-child(1) {
left: 30%;
opacity: 0.8;
z-index: 3;
}
img:nth-child(2) {
left: 45%;
opacity: 0.4;
z-index: 2;
}
img:nth-child(3) {
left: 60%;
opacity: 0.2;
z-index: 1;
}
<section>
<img src="https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_36/1685951/ss-160826-twip-05_8cf6d4cb83758449fd400c7c3d71aa1f.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg">
<img src="http://toprozdily.cz/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/slon-africky.jpg">
<img src="http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/,scalefit_950_800_noupscale/55fc14631c00004800082775.jpeg">
</section>
So what you're going to need to do is put the images each in their own div container and set the div background-color to white. That way you see the white background through the semi-opaque images and not the image underneath.
I edited your fiddle to give you the functionality you're looking for. Hope it helps!
There isn't a way to make an element be transparent to one element but opaque to another.
However, you might be able to simulate the transparency by tinting the images instead, either by positioning a partially-transparent div of that color over each image, or with CSS filters:
https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css3_pr_filter.asp

animate.css not animating child images

I have an issue where if I use $animate to add an animate.css infinite animation class to the parent div, here:
<div class="image-wrapper" ng-style="containerStyles">
<div class="image-helper">
<img ng-style="imageStyles" ng-src="{{content}}" />
</div>
</div>
The .image-wrapper div will animate but the image it contains will remain in place until I click the browser or change any CSS value in the inspector. Then the image snaps to where it should be animating and continues animating.
Here are the CSS styles that are also added:
.image-wrapper {
position: absolute;
overflow: hidden;
display: inline-block;
.image-helper {
position: relative;
height: 100%;
margin: auto;
img {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
bottom: 0;
left: 0;
right: 0;
margin: auto;
}
}
}
This also happens if I use events instead of $animate.
Has anyone experienced something similar? Does anyone know a workaraound?
Applying transform-style: preserve-3d; to the parent element fixed this issue. It was not related to $animate.

Jagged "border" showing due to background colour on wrapper element with border-radius: 50%;

As I was in the process of trying to make an animated figure (transitions on hover), I found out that the background of my <figure> is showing near the edges when I apply border-radius: 50% to it, even though my image should be taking up all available space.
For a quick demo that illustrates the problem, please look at http://codepen.io/anon/pen/KwMMKz
HTML
<figure>
<img src="http://placehold.it/400x400" alt>
<figcaption>Demo</figcaption>
</figure>
CSS
figure {
background-color: red;
width: 400px;
height: 400px;
border-radius: 50%;
overflow: hidden;
position: relative; /* For caption */
}
img {
border-radius: 50%; /* Forced on image for smooth transition */
width: 100%;
transition: opacity 1s ease-out;
}
figcaption {
position: absolute;
top: 100%;
left: 0;
width: 100%;
color: hotpink;
text-align: center;
transition: top 1s ease-out;
}
figure:hover img {
opacity: 0;
}
figure:hover figcaption {
top: 50%;
}
Please note: I know that placing the background-color on figure:hover is a work-around, but I am more interested in the reason why this "jagged border"-like look is appearing.
My guess is that it has to do with AA rendering (or something related) of the browser and that it treats the <figure> element differently than a media element such as <img>, but I can't find any proof of this online. Is this a bug, is it a "feature", or is it something I can actually fix?
Lastly, I also know that I could have used transform: translateY(); here for the animation, but that's not part of my question so please don't provide it as an answer.
UPDATE 17/12 14:03
It appears that this issue is not exclusive to border-radius: 50%. The issue can occur when any wrapping element uses border-radius in combination with overflow: hidden, when the wrapper contains content that is equal or bigger than the wrapper's dimensions.
UPDATE 17/12 14:14
Neither the usage of overflow: hidden on the wrapper element, nor the usage of border-radius on the contained image (or any other child element) seem to be the cause of this as they can be interchanged and the pixelated edge will still appear.
This seems to indicate that this issue is solely caused by 2 DOM elements being in exactly the same place, when any sort of border-radius is applied to the wrapper element and the visible area of the child is limited to that of the parent's.
I've been having same issue and ended up using pseudo element instead of background, kinda like that:
figure::before {
content: '';
display: block;
background-color: red;
width: 400px;
height: 400px;
transform: scale(0.997);
border-radius: 50%;
}
This allowed me to create 'pseudo background' which I later shrinked a little bit with transform: scale(0.997); so it will be just the same size but a bit below visible edge. Of course in your case you would also need to position image absolutely so it is not pushed below by this ::before.
It appears that it is indeed a "feature" of how the browser handles border-radius to give a smooth edge to the rounded corners of a container. The image background is anti-aliased in the same way (but as it is transparent has no effect) as can be seen by setting the img background color.
When the border is anti-aliased it "bleeds" into the background to soften the edges and so you are seeing that around the image as a "jaggy" ring in much the same way you would see a corona around the moon during a full solar eclipse.
the issue is always there, whether the anti-aliased object is covered or not, if you were to draw a circle then anti-alias it, you would see the circle is marginally narrower than the anti-aliased version. Most anti-aliasing algorithms aggregate the surrounding pixels of the object rather than those contained within it.
To overcome it, you'd either need to make your image large enough to cover the space taken up by the anti-aliased edge or reduce the container such that the anti-aliased area is smaller than the image.
You could add a new tag with an opacity of 0 then have that fade in with the image fading out.
figure {
width: 400px;
height: 400px;
border-radius: 50%;
overflow: hidden;
position: relative; /* For caption */
}
background {
background-color: red;
width: 400px;
height: 400px;
border-radius: 50%;
overflow: hidden;
opacity: 0;
position: fixed;
z-index: 5;
transition: opacity 1s ease-out;
}
img {
border-radius: 50%; /* Forced on image for smooth transition */
width: 100%;
transition: opacity 1s ease-out;
position: relative;
z-index: 100;
}
figcaption {
position: absolute;
top: 100%;
left: 0;
width: 100%;
color: hotpink;
text-align: center;
transition: top 1s ease-out;
z-index: 10000;
}
figure:hover img {
opacity: 0;
}
figure:hover background {
opacity: 1;
}
figure:hover figcaption {
top: 50%;
}
<figure>
<background></background>
<img src="http://placehold.it/400x400" alt>
<figcaption>Demo</figcaption>
</figure>
Notice I added the background tag and removed background-color from figure
http://codepen.io/marczking/pen/KwMgaR
So after playing around (used background-image and pseudo-elements, changes nothing...) you notice that this light border is only visible if you apply round corners. So I am assuming here it has to do how the Browser renders the CSS, nothing wrong with the CSS-rules ^^)
<figure>
<figcaption>Demo</figcaption>
</figure>
figure {
background-color: red;
width: 400px;
height: 400px;
border-radius: 100px;
position: relative; /* For caption */
}
figure::before {
content: "";
position: absolute;
left: 0;
top: 0;
right: 0;
bottom: 0;
background: url("http://placehold.it/400x400") no-repeat;
border-radius: 100px; /* Forced on image for smooth transition */
transition: opacity 1s ease-out;
}
figcaption {
position: absolute;
top: 100%;
left: 0;
width: 100%;
color: hotpink;
text-align: center;
transition: top 1s ease-out;
}
figure:hover::before {
opacity: 0;
}
figure:hover figcaption {
top: 50%;
}

Making CSS Sprites Responsive

UPDATE 2: Making further progress. Almost there!
jsFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/persianturtle/Tfemm/6/
The sprite is now 99% responsive, except that the
margin-bottom: %
Does not line up perfectly as the page changes width. The
margin-left: %
Seems to work great.
Any thoughts on how to align the margin-bottom perfectly?
UPDATE: Making progress, but still not yet there.
Below is the jsFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/persianturtle/Tfemm/5/
The sprite image that I wanted to crop is working responsively, except it is only being cropped horizontally and not vertically.
The Code below:
<div class="responsive-sprite" style="width: 100%;">
<img alt="Yay for alt tags..." src="http://zx85.dyndns.org/raphtest/img/nav-buttons2.jpg" />
</div>
img {
width: 100%;
height: 200%;
margin-left: -81.869%;
}
.responsive-sprite {
overflow: hidden;
}
Can anyone think of a way to crop this vertically as well?
Below is the original post:
Is there a way to make CSS sprites responsive?
Take a look at the attached jsFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/persianturtle/Tfemm/2/
Is there a way to resize this CSS sprite once the container can no longer fit the full size image?
<div class="container">
<h2 class="popular"><img src="http://zx85.dyndns.org/raphtest/img/nav-buttons2.jpg" alt="" />Featured</h2>
</div>
.container {
width: 20%;
margin: 0 auto;
}
h2 {
overflow: hidden;
position: relative;
height: 128px;
width: 192px;
max-width: 100%;
}
h2 img {
position: relative;
}
h2.popular img {
top: 0;
left: -867px;
}
h2.popular img:hover {
top: -128px;
left: -867px;
}
Hmmm. Tricky.
I haven't tested but would it work to orient the sprite horizontally instead of vertically and then:
h2 {
overflow: hidden;
position: relative;
width: 192px;
max-width: 100%;
}
h2 img {
position: relative;
width: 200%;
}
h2.popular img {
top: 0;
left: 0;
}
h2.popular:hover img {
top: 0;
left: -100%;
}
Edit:
Seems to work, the sprite just needs to be configured. Have a look at this JSFiddle.
Unfortunately, I think you will have to do each button individually because the image height is what determines the button height when it is resized.

How do I center an image if it's wider than its container?

Normally, you center images with display: block; margin: auto, but if the image is larger than the container, it overflows to the right. How do I make it overflow to the both sides equally? The width of the container is fixed and known. The width of the image is unknown.
A pure css solution
Requiring one extra wrapper (tested in FireFox, IE8, IE7):
Improved Answer
There was a problem with the original answer (below). If the image is larger than the container that outer is centered on with it's auto margins, then it truncates the image on the left and creates excessive space on the right, as this fiddle shows.
We can resolve that by floating inner right and then centering from the right. This still truncates the img off the page to the left, but it does so by explicitly pushing it that way and then centers back off of that, the combination of which is what prevents the extra horizontal scroll on the right. Now we only get as much right scroll as we need in order to see the right part of the image.
Fiddle Example (Borders in fiddle are for demo only.)
Essential CSS
div.outer {
width: 300px; /* some width amount needed */
margin: 0 auto;
overflow: visible;
}
div.inner {
position:relative;
float: right; /* this was added and display removed */
right: 50%;
}
div.inner img {
position: relative;
right:-50%; /* this was changed from "left" in original */
}
If you desire no right scroll at all for wide images
Then using the above, also set whatever element wraps outer (like body or a third wrapper) to have overflow: hidden.
Original Idea (for History)
Fiddle Example (Borders in fiddle are for demo only.)
HTML
<div class="outer">
<div class="inner">
<img src="/yourimage.png">
</div>
</div>
CSS
div.outer {
width: 300px; /* some width amount needed */
margin: 0 auto;
overflow: visible;
}
div.inner {
display: inline-block;
position:relative;
right: -50%;
}
div.inner img {
position: relative;
left:-50%;
}
Here's a 2 line CSS solution (a couple more lines might be required for cross-browser support):
img {
margin-left: 50%;
transform: translateX(-50%);
}
HTML
​<div class="image-container">
<img src="http://www.google.com/images/logo.gif" height="100" />
</div>​
CSS
.image-container {
width: 150px;
border: solid 1px red;
margin:100px;
}
.image-container img {
border: solid 1px green;
}
jQuery
$(".image-container>img").each(function(i, img) {
$(img).css({
position: "relative",
left: ($(img).parent().width() - $(img).width()) / 2
});
});
​
See it on jsFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/4eYX9/30/
Alternative pure CSS solution is to use transform attribute:
HTML:
<div class="outer">
<img class="image" src="http://www.gstatic.com/webp/gallery/4.jpg" />
</div>
CSS:
.outer {
position: relative;
width: 100px;
border: 1px solid black;
height: 150px;
margin-left: 100px; /* for demo */
/* overflow: hidden; */
}
img.image {
width: 200px;
opacity: 0.7;
position: absolute;
left: 50%;
transform: translateX(-50%);
-webkit-transform: translateX(-50%);
}
Fiddle
Just to add a overflow:hidden to parent div to hide the extra area of the image.
Your best bet is to set it as background image of the container instead.
#container {
background: url('url/to/image.gif') no-repeat center top;
}
In fact there is a simpler pure css/html way (without large horizontal scroll) :
Html :
<div class="outer">
<img src="/my/sample/image.jpg">
</div>
Css :
If you don't want to see image overflow
div.outer img {
position: absolute;
left: -50%;
z-index:-1;
}
div.outer {
overflow: hidden;
position: relative;
height: 200px;
}
With image overflow visible
div.outer img {
position: absolute;
left: -50%;
z-index:-1;
}
div.outer {
overflow: visible;
position: relative;
height: 200px;
}
body, html {
overflow-x:hidden;
}
A background solution with image overflow visible :
Html :
<div class="outer">
<div class="inner"></div>
</div>
Css :
div.outer {
width: 100%;
height: 200px;
}
div.inner {
background: url('/assets/layout/bg.jpg') center no-repeat;
position: absolute;
left: 0;
width: 100%;
height: inherit;
}
assuming outer is in a width specified container.
I see this is an old post, so maybe everybody knows this by now, but I needed help for this and I solved it using flex:
.parent {
display: flex;
/* give it the width and height you like */
}
.parent img {
min-width: 100%;
min-height: 100%;
object-fit: cover;
}
I can only think of a Javascript solution since what you need to do is relatively position the image a negative amount to the left of its container:
jQuery
$(document).ready(function(){
var theImg = $('#container img');
var theContainer = $('#container');
if(theImg.width() > theContainer.width()){
theImg.css({
position: 'relative',
left: (theContainer.width() - theImg.width()) / 2
})
}
})
I found this to be a more elegant solution, without flex, similar to something above, but more generalized (applies on both vertical and horizontal):
.wrapper {
overflow: hidden;
}
.wrapper img {
position: absolute;
top: 50%;
left: 50%;
transform: translate(-50%, -50%);
/* height: 100%; */ /* optional */
}
I don't think there is a pure CSS solution (Except for the next answer :)). However with Javascript it would be just a matter of finding the width of the image, subtracting the container width, dividing by two and you have how far to the left of the container you need.

Resources