This question already has answers here:
Why can't an element with a z-index value cover its child?
(5 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
<div class="content-wrapper">
<div class="popup">
<div class="close">
</div>
</div>
</div>
.content-wrapper is relatively positioned and contains all the page content (not just the popup).
.popup is absolutely positioned.
.close is also absolutely positioned.
I have some javascript to move close when the cursor enters popup (so I have a nice close bar appear out the side). The best way I have found to do this is just to move using jQuery animate. Hiding/showing creates a stuttering affect even .stop() wasn't able to solve. My problem is in trying to hide .close behind .popup. No matter what z-index I set for the two divs .close will not sit behind .popup.
Is it possible to have an absolutely positioned div inside another absolutely positioned div sit behind its parent, and if so how?
Yep, use z-index: http://jsfiddle.net/tGd4Q/
HTML:
<div class="content-wrapper">
<div class="popup">
<div class="close">
</div>
</div>
</div>
CSS:
.popup, .close { position: absolute; height: 200px; width: 200px; }
.popup { background: #f00; }
.close { background: #ff0; top: 25px; left: 25px; z-index: -1; }
This won't work with IE7 standards though. I suggest using jQuery(or other framework of your choosing) to hide the div:
$('.popup .close').hide();
Stacking indices are most of the time relative to siblings, so you cannot put a child behind it's parent using z-index.
Here is some more information about that.
This is the stacking order:
The borders and background of the current stacking context
Positioned descendants with negative z-index
Nonpositioned block-level descendants with no z-index property defined -- paragraphs, tables, lists, and so on
Floating descendants and their contents
Nonpositioned inline content
Positioned descendants with no z-index, z-index: auto, or z-index: 0
Positioned descendants with z-index greater than 0
Nick McCormack uses z-index: -1 in his answer. This is indeed one exception to what your feelings give in. Beware that z-index: -1 moves an element behind many of your elements to the background.
Browser differences
Beside that, Internet Explorer does not support negative stacking indices and is very strict with element (child/parent) positions. Every element level has it's own stacking context, so have to 'communicate' via the parent element. See this explanation.
According to Smashing Magazine, the select element, which is a windowed control, has naturally a higher stacking index.
According to the Shadowbox troubleElement option, I presume that object, embed and canvas have the same issues.
If you want to hide .close, why don't you really hide it instead of moving it behind .popup?
$('.close').hide();
No, you will not be able to put it behind its parent. However you could change its display mode to none, so it isn't seen at all. Then when you need to see the div, change it to show.
Simple jQuery:
$('.close').hide();
$('.close').show();
There are other ways as well, such as adding an attribute of style with display:none or display: inline-block as a setting.
Update: According to comments in other answers, there IS a way to do it with z-index. Still thinking the hide/show is the way to go though. Very clear what you are doing on your UI.
Related
I have this HTML code:
<div class="header">
<div class="desc">Description</div>
<div class="logo"><img src=""/></div>
<div class="navbar"></div></div>
.header has a height of 150px. .navbar has a height of 20px. When the user scrolls, I want .navbar to stick at the top. So I went to the CSS and set position:sticky and top:0. But this didn't work. I initially thought that firefox is not supporting position:sticky, but that's not the case because I was able to see a working demo of it. I googled about it but found nothing helpful. Anyone knows why this is not working?
Position sticky was not working for me due to the body element having overflow-x: hidden; set.
The 2 most common culprits why position: sticky; might not work are:
You haven't defined top: 0;, bottom: 0;, left: 0 or something similar
One of the parents of your sticky element has overflow (x or y) set to hidden, scroll or auto.
For me it was the first one.
It works fine if you move the navbar outside the header. See below. For the reason, according to MDN:
The element is positioned according to the normal flow of the document, and then offset relative to its flow root and containing block based on the values of top, right, bottom, and left.
For the containing block:
The containing block is the ancestor to which the element is relatively positioned
So, when I do not misunderstand, the navbar is positioned at offset 0 within the header as soon as it is scrolled outside the viewport (which, clearly, means, you can't see it anymore).
.navbar {
background: hotpink;
width: 100%;
height: 50px;
position: sticky;
top: 0;
}
.header {
height: 150px;
background: grey;
}
body {
height: 800px;
position: relative;
}
<div class="header">
<div class="desc">Description</div>
<div class="logo"><img src="" /></div>
</div>
<div class="navbar"></div>
To expand from the answers above and some information to make it work with flexbox parent and overflow other than visible (the examples below assume you use vertical - sticky with either top or bottom set to a certain value and position set to sticky):
The most frequent case is you have an ancestor element (not just immediate parent) with overflow property set to something other than visible and as a result there is no space is left to stick around.
To quickly find out if this is the case, you can run this script in the browser console (please make sure you change the .your-sticky-element class to your element's selector):
var stickyElement = document.querySelector('.your-sticky-element');
var parent = stickyElement.parentElement;
while (parent) {
var hasOverflow = getComputedStyle(parent).overflow;
if(hasOverflow != 'visible') {
console.log(hasOverflow, parent);
}
parent = parent.parentElement;
}
SOLUTION:
a) If you found there is overflow set, and you can remove it, this should solve it
b) If you have to keep your overflow setting, you have to make the parent element's height higher than the sticky element's height. If the parent element has no height or the sticky element fills up all the height, it means there is simply no place to stick within when the page is scrolled. It doesn't need to an explicit height (vertical), but you can inspect to see if your sticky element has extra space left after itself.
Parent is not higher than the sticky element to leave extra space. This particular case can be caused by different circumstances but the solution to this is the same above, please see 1.b
If your sticky element's parent is a flexbox (align-items has default value of normal) or grid, and if the sticky element itself doesn't have a proper align-self set, there will be no space left for the sticky element to hold when scrolling (for example, if it is align-self: stretch or auto [default value]). This is because the child element is stretched to fill up the height of the parent.
SOLUTION:
In this case, align-self: flex-start set for the sticky element can fix the problem because in the element will stand at the start, leaving extra space after itself.
Guide: There are much more complex circumstances both in the case of flexboxes and without it, but the general rule of thumb is your sticky element needs space within the parent to be sticky when scrolled.
Somehow your code only works when the .navbar element is not inside another container like the header. I moved it out and then it works fine. I created a codepen snippet for that, check it out
<header>
<div class="logo">Logo</div>
<div class="description"><div>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Quo, veritatis.</div></div>
</header>
<div class="navbar">
<ul>
<li>navitem1</li>
<li>navitem2</li>
<li>navitem3</li>
<li>navitem4</li>
</ul>
</div>
Right now position:sticky is supported quite good as you can see on canIuse. Of course IE currently has no support but the new Edge version will bring full support for this! I found some interesting articles about this topic:
Working demo (chrome,firefox 👍) https://codepen.io/simevidas/pen/JbdJRZ
Caniuse refernce: http://caniuse.com/#search=sticky
sticky article on MDN including latest browser support table https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/position#Sticky_positioning
But there are good news on the horizon. I think better browser support will follow the next time.
Adding more content after nav inside header provides sticky behavior, but only for a moment - if the user scrolls down too much, nav will disappear with header, since it can't jump out below header's bottom border.
Thus, the only solution with pure CSS is to put nav inside element that is partially visible even after the user scrolls to the bottom of the page (directly inside body or inside some sort of container that spans to the bottom of the page or at least to the footer).
If this solution is not possible, the other way is to use JavaScript. Before transitioning to CSS, I used the following code (found similar jQuery solution somewhere long time ago, don't remember where, so the credit goes to the anonymous author; Vanilla JS can be easily obtained from this):
$(document).ready(function () {
var sticky_navigation_offset_top = $('nav').offset().top;
var sticky_navigation = function () {
var scroll_top = $(window).scrollTop();
if (scroll_top > sticky_navigation_offset_top) {
$('nav').css({
'position': 'fixed',
'top': 0,
'left': 0,
'right': 0,
'margin-left': 'auto',
'margin-right': 'auto'
});
} else {
$('nav').css({
'position': 'relative'
});
}
};
sticky_navigation();
$(window).scroll(function () {
sticky_navigation();
});
});
Looks like if you try to set sticky a container which has many children nodes inside, instead of them being wrapped in a div, and the parent of sticky container is flex, then it will not sticky. Just wrap the childs in a div fixed it for me.
Your HTML code as it is and write CSS class for navigation bar:
.header {
height: 150px;
background-color: #d1d1d1;
}
.navbar {
background: #999;
border-bottom: 1px solid #333;
border-top: 1px solid #333;
color: #FFF;
margin: 0;
padding: 2px 0 0 12px;
position: sticky;
top: -1px;
}
<div class="header">
<div class="desc">Description</div>
<div class="logo"><img src="" /></div>
<div class="navbar"></div>
</div>
Hope this will help
Met some not evident behaviour of horizontal sticky: if width is 100%, then sticky does not work. Width should be less, then container size.
My sticky header would only partly work ... after a couple of scrolls it would disappear but would work initially
It appears the problem was that I had the parent set to height 100%.
I didn't actually need this as the body one was enough so I removed and it and all was good.. sticks forever
Although this now breaks my footer from staying on the bottom when their is no content!
No huge compromises of the HTML structure need to be made to fix this issue. Simply add display: inline; to all of the sticky element's parents up until you get to the element you wish the sticky element to stick to.
Just to add something to #user56reinstatemonica8 great point...
If immediate parent of sticky node has display: flex sticky positioning could not work.
My guess is that culprit is align-items: stretch as default.
In a flex-direction: row scenario, align-items: stretch let children's height grow so that they are equal height.
So, to overcome this and make sticky work as expected with display: flex you can:
define align-items as center | start | baseline to immediate parent that has display: flex.
define align-self as center | start | baseline to sticky node.
define an explicit height to sticky node.
This question already has answers here:
Why doesn't the height of a container element increase if it contains floated elements?
(7 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I make simple http://jsfiddle.net/6KzXw/ with CSS:
.container {
width: 50%;
margin: 0 auto;
padding: 2px;
background: red;
}
.left {
float: left;
background: yellow;
}
.right {
float: right;
background: yellow;
}
and HTML:
<div class="container">
<div class="left">To the left.</div>
<div class="right">To the right.</div>
</div>
I wondering why area of container isn't red....
After search I found solution with overflow: hidden but official docs about fix: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visufx.html make me cry when I try to understand how it work...
Can any explain why overflow: hidden is fix for surrounding problem with standard in mind?
overflow: hidden causes the container to establish a block formatting context for its contents. Without it, the floats participate in some other formatting context, having been taken out of normal flow, and therefore the floats are not taken into account when calculating the height of the container.
Once you cause the container to establish a formatting context, it will consider the floats, even though the floats are still taken out of the normal flow that is established within its own formatting context. That is stated in another section of the spec. The reason this isn't stated in the section that you link to is because it's a side effect that was never really intended, but made so due to implementation limits. See this answer (and the one that it links to) for an explanation.
you need to provide a height to the div as if you float the contents, the contents are removed from the flow of the page. essentially the div sees no children inside it as the children are floating.
i added a height to the div height: 20px
FIDDLE
When you apply the 'hidden' property to an element, any floats within it will take up space. So if you have a container that only contains floated elements, that container will act like it's empty. By setting 'overflow' to 'hidden' we force that container to account for those floats.
Another solution to this is to add a "clearfix" element below the floats. It might look something like this:
<div class="container">
<div class="left">To the left.</div>
<div class="right">To the right.</div>
<div class="clearfix"></div>
</div>
And the CSS will be something like this:
.clearfix {
clear: both;
}
Personally, I prefer setting overflow to hidden (if possible) but there are many clearfix solutions out there.
http://nicolasgallagher.com/micro-clearfix-hack/
http://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/clear-fix/
http://learnlayout.com/clearfix.html
Edit:
As far as setting a set height. You can do that if you want a set height, but if you want the container to grow or shrink based on the height on the floats, you need to set overflow hidden or use a clearfix.
Because the container has a height of 0
There are my codes. (jsfiddle)
Why this part of my codes isn't running?
header{background-color: #2bd5ec;}
I want to add background color to header tag. What i need to do?
The issue here is that since the elements inside your header are floated, they're considered in a different flow than your header, and thus it doesn't resize to fit them.
One way to fix this is to append <div style = "clear: both;"></div> to your header; little demo: little link.
You can also just add overflow: hidden; to your header: another little link, or float it as well: yet another little link.
you can set Height for Header.
for example :
header{background-color: red; height:100px;}
and you can use "clear" like this :
<header>
<div id="info">
<h1>Oyunn.in</h1>
</div>
<div id="categories">
<p>Barbie - Benten - Senten</p>
</div>
<br clear="all"/>
</header>
and css:
header{background-color: #2bd5ec;}
#info{float: left;}
#info h1{font-size: 100%;margin: 0;}
#categories{float: right;}
#categories p{margin:0;}
use overflow:hidden
header{background-color: #2bd5ec; overflow:hidden;}
The overflow CSS property specifies whether to clip content, render scroll bars or display overflow content of a block-level element.
Using the overflow property with a value different than visible, its default, will create a new block formatting context. This is technically necessary as if a float would intersect with the scrolling element it would force to rewrap the content of the scrollable element around intruding floats. The rewrap would happen after each scroll step and would be lead to a far too slow scrolling experience. Note that, by programmatically setting scrollTop to the relevant HTML element, even when overflow has the hidden value an element may need to scroll.
The overflow declaration tells the browser what to do with content that doesn't fit in a box. This assumes the box has a height: if it doesn't, it becomes as high as necessary to contain its contents, and the overflow declaration is useless.
SEE DEMO
Add
header{background-color: #2bd5ec;width:100%; height:30px;}
Background attribute usually needs div's dimensions
actually you didn't clear your child floats so whenever we are using float so we should clear the floats and we can give overflow: hidden; in our parent div to clearing the child floated div's.
header {
background-color: #2BD5EC;
overflow: hidden;
}
see the demo:- http://jsfiddle.net/vE8rd/17/
I'm using z-index on my page ( -link no longer needed- ), and it doesn't work properly: it doesn't place certain divs above all others...
You can see it yourself, by clicking one of the items in the left, or right bar.
Then, the mask will fade in, but show the message box, beneath it.
I've tried a lot, but I just can't get the message box to show above all others...
What can I do to fix this? [note: 2nd question below!]
If you don't want to check the page, the message box is located in some other divs:
<div>
<div>
<div>message box</div>
</div>
</div>
The CSS positioning is like this:
.window {
position: fixed;
left: 0px;
top: 0px;
z-index: 100;
}
I use position:fixed, because position:absolute is not absolute here, the div is not aligned to the body, but something else somehow.
Is there a way to reset the positioning and absolute position it again?
For as long as I can remember, z-index issues often come from the fact than the parents of the z-indexed elements are not positioned. Sibling parents should be positioned.
If you're using jquery check the top Z Index Plug In, you can apply it when the object has a mouse over event like:
<div id="modal" onmouseover="$(this).topZIndex();"></div>
Then change the position to absolute with jquery also or viceversa:
$(document).ready(function(){ $('#modal').css('position','absolute'); });
if you remove z-index from #leftbar it fixes your problem. The position should not matter, as long as you have one.
I have two sibling divs sitting below each other, both contained in the same parent div.
The requirement is that the divs need a certain amount of space between them, let's say 20px, but the space beween the inner divs and the parent div needs to be the same on all sides (top, right, bottom, left), in this case 0px.
The constraint here is that the inner divs need to have the exact same markup, so I can't apply a different or additional class to just one of them. Also I can't add any markup between the child divs or only above or below one of the child divs.
What would be a good way to solve this problem with CSS (no javascript), in a cross-browser compatible way?
Thanks!
#parentdiv div {
margin-top: 20px;
}
#parentdiv div:first-child {
margin-top: 0;
}
should do it. Alternatively, you could try
#parentdiv div + div {
margin-top: 20px;
}
Which solution to use depends on browers’ support of either the :first-child pseudo-class, or the + adjacent selector. Any modern browser (thus, discounting IE6) should support both.
you could insert another div inbetween them and make its height 20px? or is putting the first inner div into a new div and then making the new divs bottom margin 20px an acceptable solution?
As others have already stated, you cannot use a pure CSS approach that will work in IE6. However, why not use a minified, basic jQuery framework - without the ui it will be tiny - and then you can call the first child and apply the margin to that:
$("#parentdiv:first").css({ marginTop: 0 })
That way you'd have already applied the margin-top:20px; in your css, now you're removing it from the first child only. I know you said you did not want a javascript approach, but you're not left with much choice, unless you're willing to re-engineer ie6 and resurrect him for us?
Hope this helps someone somewhere.
Two divs sitting below each other? Do you mean they're stacked vertically, one on top of the other? Margin-top would do it as long as you don't have padding on the parent div.
Try this example.
<html>
<head>
<style>
div.parent {
background-color: #AAA;
}
div.child {
background-color: #CCC;
margin-top: 20px;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="parent">
<div class="child"> </div>
<div class="child"> </div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
You'll notice that as long as there's nothing inside the parent above the first child its margins won't extend the parent div.
If they're side-by-side and floating that's a different story, margin-left doesn't work the same as margin-top. You might be able to use margin-right on both divs but fix the width of the parent and set overflow to hidden in order to chop off the extended margin - but I'm not sure about compatibility on that kind of thing.
Are you absolutely certain you've got no way to distinguish the two divs? Finding a way around that constraint might do a lot to help you.