Im trying to align a jquery popup div to the center of my screen using top and left properties. I thought its better to give % values for these two properties so that the popup will be centered even if browser window is resized.
But when i actually resized the browser window its not resulting as expected.
So my doubt is, does the % value we specify for top, left properties depend upon the screen resolution? Or do they depend upon the parent container's size?
They might. The percentage is relative to whatever element contains it. If that element happens to be the window itself, then yeah, it has to do with the resolution. In fact, it will always depend on the screen resolution as long as its parent does. And the same goes for the parent's parent, and so on. Kinda tough to grasp.
Basically, if any element "above" your element in the hierarchy of things doesn't depend on the resolution, neither does your element. But in order to see if it's parent depends on the resolution, you have to look at that element's parent. And the parent after that. And so on all the way to the top. Or you could test it out and look :)
It there's an absolute-positioned/sized element somewhere above it in the "hierarchy", then chances are it doesn't rely on screen resolution.
The % depend on the next relative parent container's size.
Percentages rely on their parents' size. See here: http://jsfiddle.net/tqWhL/4/ the red div is as wide as #a.
Since body is 100% of the browser window width, you could make your div a child of body and set it to 100% width.
Related
I have a web page as follows (see img)
A certain div has a width of 100% which is filling the whole viewport.
When checking on Chrome, the viewport size is 500px while the CSS size is 536.
Does anyone have an idea why it's different please ?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Many modern visualization techniques, such as parallax, require larger elements than the actual viewport size and a smart usage of transform properties in order to create particular visual effects and/or illusions.
Your picture is actually showing a part of the parent element displaying properties particular to such techniques, clearly showing: -webkit-logical-width:800px and perspective-origin: 400px 300px.
For any element with a position value other than fixed, width:100% usually results into the child having an equal width with the parent, not with the viewport. There are notable exceptions from this rule, though.
If you need a more in-depth explanation as to why does the parent have a different width than the viewport (and it's parent parent, and so on... - all the way to the viewport), you need to post a Minimal, complete and verifiable example and I'll lay down each of the ancestors of your element affecting its width.
If, on the contrary, you don't really need to know what's going on at parents level, but are looking for a way to make your current element as wide as the viewport, you probably want to give it a width value of 100vw.
I have an image of that has a height of 480px. On my Macbook it looks OK but when I go to my 30 inch monitor obviously there is a huge space in the bottom.
What can I do to make sure that the 480px will always be in relation so the size of the user's screen?
I did some searches and it seems that using background-image: cover or background position I can do some stuff but highly likely it's not what I am looking for. What can I do tackle this issue?
One way to achieve this is to place the image in a container that can scale with the page.
Height is a hard attribute to scale, but you can achieve it as long as all of the parent elements have a specified height as well.
You can use CSS code such as
height:40%;
to scale elements.
Scale the page's height here to see for yourself: http://jsfiddle.net/L7uWd/
Try with the width in percentage to set the image size as per the browser width. It's always preferable to set the width in percentage(instead of pixel) while re-sizing the element based on window re-sizing.
Set the image height to some percentage instead of pixel, that will automatically handle with the size of the screen.
I've attached a repeat-y background to my body element, and while everything else works fine, I noticed that when the window width is less than the min-width of the body, the background is in fact centered to the window instead of the body element.
I checked from the element inspector in Chrome (and it's also obvious from the horizontal scrollbar) that the min-width attribute works; the background just isn't centered accordingly.
I'm running the latest consumer Chrome. Is this a browser bug (sure smells to me like it)? How can I circumvent it?
I've made a Fiddle; http://jsfiddle.net/FXyMz/ — Make the Result window's width smaller than 250 pixels and you'll see.
The body element is a special case, and will not work the way you want it to.
"The background of the root element becomes the background of the canvas and its background painting area extends to cover the entire canvas,"
in: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#special-backgrounds
Your best bet is probably to place another layer within the body to behave the way you're expecting the body to behave.
This: http://jsfiddle.net/7mVNL/1/ is a partial solution. You'll see that the wrapper doesn't paint all the way down to the bottom of the viewport as I expect you would desire.
I'm working on a website for a client, and I'm not excellent at css... still in the process of learning a lot about divs. I made a div that is supposed to stretch 100% of the page, and it works, unless a user is browsing from a lower resolution (1024 x 768 for example) and has to scroll horizontally, the div will then only extend to the original length of the browser window.
That coupled with the fact that my footer is behaving the same way, and is not sticking to the bottom of the page.
The code/website can be found at:
http://cliqthis.com/temp/roadhouse/index.php
Thank you for any assistance, or an explanation of why this is happening would be helpful as I am still in the process of learning.
You see the scrollbar for resolution 1024x768 because <div id='container'> has a width of 1064 pixels set on it. The parent div will have a minimum width of 1064 due to this.
Are we talking about the black bars not extending all the way to the right?
You need to make sure not only that those divs' widths are 100%, but that all their ancestors' widths are also 100%. With normal (static) positioning, the 100% width means 100% of the element's parent's width.
Using the Web Developer addon in Firefox, with Outline Current Element turned on should prove very helpful in determining which elements aren't as wide as they need to be. (Move your mouse around the page and it will outline the element you're over, and tell you the css selector path to it).
Also you might want to compare the structure to the original template you used. It seems odd to me that, for example, you have an empty div.#footer element, and then a table.foot element after it, rather than inside of it. Perhaps you accidentally broke something there?
Set up a minimum width for the div.
div.class { /* ... */ min-width: ___px !important; /* ... */ }
I've coded myself into a corner or I am overseeing something obvious here. I have a semi-fluid CSS layout that is designed like this:
header - 100% width at all times, contains a x-repeated background image
container - fluid (960px to 1200px, centered, contains two columns)
footer - 100% width at all times, contains a x-repeated background image
In almost all cases this works fine.
In summary, the design as a whole scales to any width, yet the content part only to 1200px at a maximum. However, since this concerns a photo site, sometimes images are wider than the container width of 1200px and the image breaks out of it. This is perfectly fine, I want the full image to be shown. However, I want the header and footer to scale to the widest element, in this case the image. This is not happening and is particularly troublesome when I resize the window to a width less than the image and then scroll to the right using the horizontal scrollbar: it leaves a clear gap on both the header and footer whilst I want them to stretch to at least the image/content width.
Simply setting the width to 100% is not enough as that concerns the viewport, not the content width. I can forcefully use min-width with a large value for the header and footer, but that leaves a horizontal scrollbar in normal resolutions. I could hide that scrollbar using overflow:hidden but that would chop of content and not display a scrollbar when the window is small.
To make a long story short, I guess what I want is that this layout would work as a table would work: if one column's content is wider than its size, it pushes all other rows to that same width. The largest width determines the total width. I prefer a solution without javascript, but am thinking it is either not possible or I am overseeing something very obvious?
100% width sets the element's width to 100% of the width of the element it is contained in. In your case, it seems this is the window itself (or the body element). To make the header and footer divs (I'm assuming you're using divs here) scale with the image, they will probably need to either be included in the same div that the image is in, or inside a div that the image div is also in, assuming that div is scaling to the correct width (don't assume it is scaling to fit the image).
However, in many cases using a table for your layout can be much cleaner, and will handle the type of horizontal scaling you're looking for without needing to resort to css hacks.
To make a long story short, I guess
what I want is that this layout would
work as a table would work
display: table on the common container of these elements, and display: table-row or table-cell on its children. This will not work in IE6, but clever things can be done with its CSS expression() hack to simulate this.
I would rather suggest, however, that you not set a maximum width at all, and allow the design to flow better according to the user's desired window size.