I'm following a tutorial on how to make a CSS ribbon. However the end result only shows a ribbon on one side of a given element. I'm wondering: given the code in the tutorial, is there a way to get it to appear on both sides? Maybe I'm confused by the meaning of :before and :after. Do I need to add a <div> on either side and target both?
You can only have one :before and :after pseudo element per element, so you need to add another wrapper and style that one with opposing characteristics. I've put one together for you here, based on the tutorial you referenced.
To understand better pseudo elements, viewing a previous answer of mine might be helpful.
Related
First I should admit that I'm a beginner and the question might seem awkward to most of you, sorry for that.
My question is - what is the best practice (float or position) to position an element in a 2 or multi column layout assuming the design wont break apart after zooming an website?
I searched through this site and discovered some posts concerning this issue but those are 4/5years old and I could not come out with any conclusion.
Looking forward to have your expert views....
Thanks..
Its really based on how you want your element to be positioned or placed within the page.
CSS Position:
You should be choosing css positions to place your element if you wish the element to appear on top or bottom of any other elements and also if you wish to animate those.
Positioned element does not care for siblings placement.
Floats:
For creating columns, having content aligned to left or right and adjust to its adjacent siblings - you should use CSS floats.
Let us say, you have an image and bunch of texts, you should use floats if you wish to wrap texts around image. If image is not present then texts would cover the space. This wont happen in case of css positions.
I've struggling to position these hexagons next to each other on 3 lines, here is the page I'm trying to manipulate http://goo.gl/xpHmw
effect I'm trying to achieve
http://www.queness.com/resources/images/13901.gif
Many thanks for any help and assistance.
There are probably many ways of achieving it. My solution would probably be wrapping the hexagons in a relatively positioned container, assign a position: absolute to all the hexagons and position each of them manually with 'left' and 'top'.
I've abstracted the code for you to better understand.
http://codepen.io/nobitagit/pen/ojvue
ps - next time you ask a question you'd better abstract your problem in jsfiddle.net or codepen so other people will likely find it easier to answer you and the problem + solution will be there for others to see in the future.
Okay so I just checked your website at home.
This isn't something that's very easy to do in CSS because it doesn't fit very well into rectangles or "blocks" like CSS employs.
I have some suggestions. Perhaps it doesn't "answer" your question but it will give you a good start.
Div tags do not hold semantic value and they are "empty" in that regard. In this case, you used numerous div tags inside an unordered list <ul> to create backgrounds for the hexagons. This is fine and all but I would recommend:
Remove the divs completely. An unordered list really shouldn't have divs. It is an "unordered" list afterall. I would either use divs exclusively or better yet:
Use an unordered list and create each hexagon as a background. One box holds -> 1 hexagon. The hexagons do not scale. No reason to have a separate div for the top/bottom.
You don't have to use absolute positioning. You simply need to have some of these hexagons overlap. For the second row of hexagons you can use a negative margins to offset and place them in the correct location. Use .png for transparenencies on the corners!
Pseudo solution:
Each hexagon takes up a square.
Create hexagon backgrounds as .png in photoshop
Hold each in a <li> and float them in a <ul> --> do not use divs
Use a negative top margin to overlap the second row into the cracks of the other hexagons.
Good luck. Post an update with your progress. I'll help you further; but I can't produce a solution for you.
I'm developing a website using bootstrap and my header is a navbar-inner class.
In some pages I need to put another div of a different class right under navbar-inner and I want it to seamlessly continue to use the same gradient so that the user feels like it is a continuation of the header.
Probably I can find a way to calculate the gradient of the navbar-inner and make another one starting with the ending color of that, but this won't look nice since the height both of the navbar and of the other div change dynamically.
Can anyone suggest a good approach for combining the gradient styling across a dynamic number of div elements?
Thank you
Along the same lines as what #Ana suggested, I think the easiest way is to wrap them together in one element. Rather than nest them, I would wrap them both as siblings in a parent div, which would have the desired styling. That way the gradient and height adjusts automatically, whether or not you include the second div on a given page.
I sometimes find myself creating a div which serves no other purpose than to hold another element.
For example when creating a menu, I would create a div and assign it a background colour, position etc. Then within it I would create an unordered list.
I could surely assign all the properties I assigned to the DIV to the UL and not use a div at all.
Any ideas of what is best practice and reasons for it.
Thanks
Zenna
DIVs can be useful for grouping semantically related elements. If you are simply wrapping a single element that is also a block element, then you are simply adding bytes to the file.
No, they are not. The purpose of a div element is to create block level structure in the document. If you can lose them just lose them. Never use divs to solve design purposes, css is for that. Use html elements each like list, data definitions or tables (which were overabused in the past and used as the divs are now for css purposes). The more diverse your HTML knowledge is the less you are using divs all over the place.
I use often divs to keep child-padding/margins from ruining parent-width. But you need to be careful with this type of stuff - you could end up adding a bunch of nonsense.
The real issue is that we are using HTML in ways that its creators had never imagined. The need for 'all those divs' is because some really smart people have found some very creative ways to take a very old standard and do some very modern things with it.
Best practice should be to use as few div elements as possible. If you've got a div elements with only one child, chances are it's a useless div. The div element should really only be used when you need a block element and there is no semantic pre-defined element at hand. This includes grouping elements as Renesis suggests.
In the case of a UL, yes, the DIV is unnecessary. They are both block elements, so anything you can do with a DIV wrapped around the outside you can do directly to the UL itself.
However, because of the Box Model problem with some IE browsers, some people tell you to add these DIVs as a workaround. When you combine padding and width, IE6 disagrees with other browsers about what the final size of the element will be. So one workaround is to put padding but no width on an inner element, and width but no padding on an outer element.
Div's are really a necessary evil without a more semantically rich set of tags.
Their purpose is to server as a generic container. Therefore, I suppose you could say they do their job well.
If you can do what you're trying to do without the additional div, then leave it out. If it's an important part of your design that you can't fix with some clever CSS, then it's still a whole lot better than using tables...
I use DIVS primarily for at least one of two main reasons:
I need it to provide a new physical level of CSS in some way (either child padding inside a fixed width element, a shadow or a double border around an image, etc.)
It logically groups the elements it contains (for future portability and semantics in both HTML and CSS - I.E. "div#menu .label". This way I can use the "label" class several places but have a specific style applied to labels within the "menu" div).
For example, if you were to transfer all attributes to the UL, but then decided you wanted a caption or image above or below the menu but in the same location, you would have to create the DIV again to place the new element inside, and transfer half of the attributes back to it.
I'm working on an application with a map and there is a div in the corner with some stuff in it. You can click on this map to bring up some information in a little window. The window is, in some cases, being covered by the div in the corner.
I want the opposite effect (window covers div). I figured this would simply be a z-index issue but I'm unable to get it to work. This is with IE7 and from reading up a bit it seems like z-index won't work unless it's inside of an element that is positioned.
The elements seem to be positioned properly to get the z-index to work right but I'm having little luck. I've played around with adding styling via Firebug but haven't had any luck in getting anything to change. The window really is just two divs one absolutely positioned one and a relative one inside of it.
Is the z-index the only thing that could be the problem here or is there something else I don't know about?
Are there any other methods to achieve the effect I want? I cannot simply hide the div via jquery or something because part of it should be visible from behind the window that opens on the map.
You are hitting the stacking context bug
http://therealcrisp.xs4all.nl/meuk/IE-zindexbug.html
Every positioned div in IE will create a new stacking context and prevent z-index from diferent stacking contexts to come on top of others.
The solution is to have the window you want on top up in the tree (into the body for example) and z-index value grater than z-index of all parents of the other div covering your window.
Extensive information to understand the problem here:
http://richa.avasthi.name/blogs/tepumpkin/2008/01/11/ie7-lessons-learned/
positioning and negative margins is the only way to get elements to overlap that i know of. z-index is just used to explicitly tell the browser how to layer the elements.
as to your problem, IE requires the container elements and/or elements that you are overlapping to have position:relative; or position:absolute; for z-index to work properly. When someone say positioning they're usually implying having the position property set in CSS. Also when working with z-index make sure that the overlapping elementa are at the same level with each other.
Hope this helps
Quite simply, the order of the elements in your HTML file will determine stacking order. If you want an element to be above another then make sure it comes later in the HTML.
You can only swap the stacking order on elements that are all in the same containing element. For example if you have two divs and they both contain 3 images you cannot make images from the second div go below images from the first div.
You need to plan your HTML ahead if you need complex stacking orders.
As hinted by the other answers, position:relative and position:absolute reset the "stacking-context" in IE.
If you want a lazier answer you could use javascript and hide the div when you click on the map, and show it when you close the map.
You will have to do this with any selects on the page anyway because in ie they don't work with z-index.
I ran into this same issue a couple days ago and found the negative margin as suggested by Darko Z worked great. (My rep isn't good enough yet to vote for Darko)
I wrote a quick post on it.
http://www.swards.net/2009/03/layering-html-elements-without-using.html