Logical explanation for CSS background-position? - css

For an application with a good lot of icons, I want to make an image sprite.
Since I started my 'adventure' in the land of webdesign/ front-end webdev, I've always wondered: what is the logic behind background-position: (left)<number>px (top)<number>px;
When you compare this to the shorthand property for either padding or margin(when only specifying top and left), these are both property: (top)<number>px (left)<number>px;
So top and left values are reversed.
Also, suppose I have a sprite that is 64px (length) x 16px (height) and contains a total of 4 16x16 icons. To get the second icon in the sprite (|____|_this_|___|____|), you have to type background-image: -16px 0px; instead of 16px 0px (which would be logical, because the second icon starts 16px later than the first one).
If you want an example (I know w3schools is not always correct but it will do for the example): http://www.w3schools.com/css/tryit.asp?filename=trycss_sprites_nav
So my question is: Why are all the values for the background-position property like,... reversed? Is there any logic behind it? Does CSS read the property from right to left?

When using shorthand for margin (or padding) with only two values you are not setting a X/Y position - you are setting four margins, using the same value for top & bottom (vertical margins), as well as right & left (horizontal margins). You can also pass four values and they will start with margin-top and continue clockwise around the box (top -> right -> bottom -> left).
I usually remember this using the word "trouble" without any vowels (TRBL).
Anyway: for positioning there is only two values, and it is common practice to use the vertical axis (x-axis, 0 is top) and then then horizontal (y-axis, 0 is left), so using a negative value for the y-axis on background-position would move a background the same direction you would move the box if you were to give it a negative left margin.
.class1 {
background-position: -20px 0; // move background 20px left
margin-left: -20px; // move box 20px left (margin, following items will also move)
}
.class2 {
position: relative;
left: -20px; // move box 20px left (position, following items will stay put)
}
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the values are basically coherent, depending on how you look at it ;)
Docs for margin (check the syntax list)

Related

How to make RadMenu root items justified?

Specifically, how would I do this without any JavaScript?
I have a RadMenu that I made 1080px wide, I have about 7 items in it so they only take up about 2/3 of that width.
I want force the items to split the width of the whole RadMenu between them so there's no awkward blank area on either side.
(Similar to using Justify on a RadTab)
Can this be achieved with CSS, or existing functionality of the RadMenu?
You'll have to play with the padding element of the RadMenu and adjust the right and left side to get the desired with you want.
.RadMenu .rmRootGroup .rmRootLink {
padding: .25em .54em .35em .50em;
}
Remember the order is top, right, bottom, left.

CSS center an element

Why do 'margin left and right set to auto and max. and min. width' center an element?
#header{
max-width: 1400px;
min-width: 360px;
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
}
I do not get it.
Since auto in both right and left margins take up the "available" space equally, the element is aligned to the center.
A left or right margin with auto will take up all of the "available" space making the element look like it has been flushed right or left.
Look in this source for more information.
You can easily understand with the following demo:
div{
max-width: 300px;
background-color: red;
margin-left: auto;
}
<div>
auto
</div>
In the above snippet, you can see when you use margin-left auto the div is taking up all the available space so it pushed to right. Now, you can think by using margin-right:auto; will push the element towards the left. So, using both will force it to stay at center by taking up both available space.
It divides the sum of the empty space on the right and left sides of an element by two and uses that as margin-left and margin-right, thus centering it. Another way of thinking about it is subtracting the width of the child from the width of the parent and then dividing that by 2.
In reality, margin-left and margin-right are still set to auto, so if you try to get their values in JavaScript, you are going to get "auto", but that is the logic behind it.
The math behind it is:
marginLeft = (parentWidth - childWidth) / 2
marginRight = marginLeft
As I'm not satisfied with the exhaustiveness of the other answers, here's a more detailed explanation. In general, the w3c Recommendation elaborates on this in great detail and should be consulted for questions requiring a more precise answer.
The typical use case margin: 0 auto (top and bottom set to 0, left and right to auto) works by having the browser calculate the available space and apply it to each auto value of a property, divided equally.
In the attempt to also provide a "math behind it" example (I put this in quotes, as it's a very simplified visualisation of the actual math) is much closer to this:
availableSpace = (parentWidth - childWidth)
marginLeft, marginRight = availableSpace / amountOfAutoValues
This will work under the following conditions (simplified):
it's not absolute- or fixed-positioned
it's not floating
it's not an inline element (This is to be distinguished from "it must be a block element", which is wrong - for example, inline-block won't work)
This is, because those modes already overwrite the object's place within the document, and calculating a margin is likely not advantageous.
The only requirement is just the margin setting for it to technically apply - you only need to set a width (or max-width) smaller than the parent in order to see the effect, as in any other scenario, the available space will simply be 0.
min-width will never have any effect regarding automatic margins in this way.
You could achieve the same result if instead of max-width and min-width you used display:table along with the margin + auto value and rest of the code. If left only with margin-left it will align to the extreme right corner of the page, if left only with margin-right it will align to the extreme left, now what do you think will happen if you leave it with margin-left margin-right? I'm pretty sure you won't create a paradox. :)
-------------------------> margin-left:auto
margin-right:auto <------------------------
margin-left:auto <-------> margin-right:auto

Moving overlapping sliding vertical images when scrolling

Basically, I'd like to understand how the effect with the vertically scrolling, but overlapping images on the amazing Beolit 15 works.
What I found out so far is that they use a container div which again contains four divs that are positioned absolutely to the upper left corner of the container. So far, so good. Apart from that, the four divs all have the same size, feature a background-image that is sized as cover, and have different z-index values to make sure that they are in the correct order on top of each other.
Then, what they added is a clip style that always starts in the upper left corner of each of the four divs, always has the same width, but they differ in their vertical length. The top-most is the shortest one, the second-top-most is the second-shortest one, and so on…
So far, I already have two questions:
How do they get the 673px width? Isn't this depending on screen resolution? Why is it exactly this value?
How did they get the height of teach of the clipping rectangles? Why exactly those values? (Of course, because otherwise it wouldn't work, but how did they get those values? I'm sure not by trial and error…)
Now, apart from that, you can see that when you scroll, basically all they do is update the lower border of the clipping rectangle. This way it looks as if they were sliding up, and move above the images, while they stay fixed.
What I do not get here is how they do this. Obviously they have somehow attached to the window.scroll event, but how exactly?
They add a .fixed class to div.images via e.startEngine() once it reaches the top edge of the viewport and remove it via e.stopEngine() when you scrolled through all images. This triggers the following styles:
.focus .images.fixed {
position: fixed;
width: calc(50% - 30px);
}
calc(50% - 30px) is probably the 673px you are searching for.
The style every image gets looks like:
height: 928px;
clip: rect(0px 597px 1856px 0px);
which can be expanded to:
height: [window.innerHeight];
clip: rect(
0px
[window.innerWidth / 2 - 30]
[
this.parentNode.parentNode.offsetTop +
document.querySelector('.inpagenav').offsetHeight +
(window.innerHeight * IMAGENUMBER) -
window.scrollY
]
0px
);
The scroll event is attached via e.Tools.bindEvent(window, "scroll", w) and the function w calls e.Tools.clipY() which sets the clip styles for each image.

Geometry header in css

i'm working on my personal website and i have an idea. Better it will show as a image.
img
I want to ask how to do the geometry in the header only with css. It must always be the center of the page. Logo could be fixed at the center of the header. Thanks for your answer!
Analysing the design shows it is mostly made up of a lot of triangular shapes, plus three boxes. You can therefore do the whole thing with CSS. The way to create a triangle in CSS is to use a div, give it zero width and height, and a border of a suitable thickness. There are many articles on the web on how to do this, and it has been explained before on StackOverflow as well, with some excellent explanations of the theory behind it.
So there's a lot out there to consult and I won't go into it again at length here. But basically the CSS is like:
.triangle {
width: 0;
height: 0;
border-bottom: 100px solid blue;
border-left: 50px solid green;
margin : 0;
padding : 0;
}
This particular example produces a right angled triangle with one side sloping in the direction of the main diagonal in your design - i.e. from bottom-left to top-right. Making border-left and border-bottom the same length would produce a diagonal at 45 degrees, but in your design it's a different angle, so I've used different lengths. You can experiment to get exactly the slope you want. Whether you use border left, right, bottom, or top decides the orientation of the triangle.
Having achieved that main diagonal, identify the other triangles in the design and create some more, smaller divs and add similar CSS. You can then overlay them on top of the design using absolute positioning, and a bit of z-index if needed. One bit of the stuff in the center will also need a tiny rectangular div putting on top of the triangles.
It's as neat an exercise in CSS triangles as ever I've seen, but I'll leave you to work out the details!

Setting a background image in a div, position options

I know how to set a background in a div like:
background: url(/images/image.gif) no-repeat top right;
Sometimes I need more fine grained control, other than say top, center or bottom.
I have seen people using 'em' in the position section, what is that doing?
See the MDN reference for background-position. Instead of general terms, you can also use percentages or other CSS units of measurement to set an x- or y-offset. em is a unit that refers to the font size for the current element, but you can also use px for pixel offset.
Keep in mind the em is a RELATIVE size - so a 1em is a relative to my container and NOT actual size. A 1, is a 1em based on my browsers default.
So a parent (say .parent) class with a 1em and a child with a 0.75em would be .75 of the parent. A grandchild of that parent with 0.5em would be 0.5em of the 0.75, or approx 0.375 of the original 1em and not 0.5 of that original.
I don't use .px - it is easier to start, but when you need to change everything, you need to change it everywhere - so if you change the 1em to a 1.25em, it also changes the child and grandchild nested within those.
for a concrete example, if I put a margin-top: 0.5em; in a CSS, I am saying to put half the height of my current font as the top margin.
.px - pixels which change depending on the monitor setting and has origins in screen resolution.
.pt - is point, which means that on a printed page, 72 point is approx 1 inch - it has origins in printed material.
% has origins in well, percentage, and I find it more difficult to manage long term.
em has origins in markup.
Most browsers have 12pt (point) font as the base (if I remember correctly), which is 1em, which is - an unknown number of pixels really. SO, off the cuff if I remember .625em is approx 10pt, so if I set the body to .625em, then my .5em below that is 5 point in size, 2em below the body would be 20 point and so forth.
EDIT: my math bites at the end of the day :) so 10/12 is .8333 - so we need .8333 not .625, but you get the idea.
Gradients can be controlled by
background:#fff url(images/vertical_sliced_image.gif) repeat-y;
or
background:#fff url(images/horizontal_sliced_image.gif) repeat-x;
You can slice 1px height or 1px width (Gradient image) and repeat it in the background horizontally or vertically...
hope this helps

Resources