I am performing a CSS transform: rotate on a parent, yet would like to be able to negate this effect on some of the children - is it possible without using the reverse rotation?
Reverse rotation does work, but it affects the position of the element, and it may have a negative performance impact (?). In any case, it doesn't look like a clean solution.
I tried the "transform: none" suggestion from this question prevent children from inheriting transformation css3, yet it simply doesn't work - please see the fiddle here: http://jsfiddle.net/NPC42/XSHmJ/
May be you have to write like this:
.child {
position: absolute;
top: 30px;
left: 50px;
background-color: green;
width: 70px;
height: 50px;
-webkit-transform: rotate(-30deg);
-moz-transform: rotate(-30deg);
-o-transform: rotate(-30deg);
-ms-transform: rotate(-30deg);
transform: rotate(-30deg);
}
Check this for more http://jsfiddle.net/XSHmJ/1/
Updated:
You can use:after & :before psuedo class for this.
check this http://jsfiddle.net/XSHmJ/4/
I believe that you are going to need to fake it using a second child, the specification does not seem to allow for the behavior you would like, and I can understand why the position of a child element has to be affected by a transform to its parent.
This isn't the most elegant of solutions, but I think you're trying to do something that the specification is never going to allow. Take a look at the following fiddle for my solution:
.parent {
position: relative;
width: 200px;
height: 150px;
margin: 70px;
}
.child1 {
background-color: yellow;
width: 200px;
height: 150px;
-webkit-transform: rotate(30deg);
-moz-transform: rotate(30deg);
-o-transform: rotate(30deg);
-ms-transform: rotate(30deg);
transform: rotate(30deg);
}
.child2 {
position: absolute;
top: 30px;
left: 50px;
background-color: green;
width: 70px;
height: 50px;
}
<div class="parent">
<div class="child1"></div>
<div class="child2"></div>
</div>
If you want to apply transforming effects on a parent without affecting its children, you can simply animate a parent's pseudo-element like this:
.parent {
display: inline-block;
position: relative;
}
.parent::before {
content: "";
background: #fab;
/* positioning / sizing */
position: absolute;
left: 0;
top: 0;
/*
be aware that the parent class have to be "position: relative"
in order to get the width/height's 100% working for the parent's width/height.
*/
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
/* z-index is important to get the pseudo element to the background (behind the content of parent)! */
z-index: -1;
transition: 0.5s ease;
/* transform before hovering */
transform: rotate(30deg) scale(1.5);
}
.parent:hover::before {
/* transform after hovering */
transform: rotate(90deg) scale(1);
}
This actually worked for me. JSFiddle
Related
I am trying to understand what is really happening “3d” world of CSS.
I made a simple example
Particularly the code which bugs me the most is:
.back {
background-color: tomato;
transform: rotateY(180deg);
z-index: 1;
}
The thing which is not clear to me is why when you hover over .inner, its background color (gold) is not visible?? If you remove the transform property from .back or if you set the rotateY to 0deg then the gold background color of the .inner is clearly visible.
Why is the transform property of .back changing the stacking order?
Logically it makes sense that children(.front and .back) should appear in front of their parent(.inner).
Also, I would like to know what really happens when you set transform-style to flat? Does that make parent and all of its children collapse into single “unit” where element with highest stacking order takes priority/visibility?
in your code :
.outer {
display: block;
width: 200px;
height: 200px;
border: 2px solid gold;
perspective: 1000px;
padding: 10px;
margin: 0 auto;
}
.inner {
position: relative;
height: 100%;
width: 100%;
transition: transform 2s linear;
transform-style: preserve-3d;
background-color: gold;
backface-visibility: visible;
transform: rotateY(50deg);
}
.sides {
position: absolute;
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
left: 0;
top: 0;
color: white;
backface-visibility: hidden;
}
.front {
background-color: blue;
transform: translateZ(20px)
}
.back {
background-color: tomato;
transform: rotateY(180deg) translateZ(10px);
}
.inner:hover {
transform: rotateY(180deg)
}
<div class="outer">
<div class="inner">
<div class="sides front">Front Side</div>
<div class="sides back">Back Side</div>
</div>
</div>
you are using
transform: rotateY(180deg) translateZ(10px);
The transforms are applied right to left, so first it goes to the front 10px. But after that, it rotates 180deg. (around the transform-origin that is constant). That makes the previous 10px go towards the back instead of to the front.
if the order is the inverse
transform: translateZ(10px) rotateY(180deg);
now the rotation is done first, and so the translation is unafected by it and goes to the front.
and No, sorry, z-index is not a substitute for 3-d transforms, if you want to use 3d transforms, translation is the only way to go ....
In your first example, z-index is useless, as can be seen easily
codepen with z-index removed
This works because you are setting
backface-visibility: hidden;
So only the face that is facing front will be visible
I'm trying to make a paper stack effect with pseudo elements.The CSS code is:
.body{background-color: #F5F5F5; height:100%;}
#content {
...
position: relative;
...
display: block;
}
#content:after,
#content:before {
display: block;
height: 100%;
left: -1px;
position: absolute;
width: 100%;
}
#content:after {
-webkit-transform: rotate(2deg);
-moz-transform: rotate(2deg);
-ms-transform: rotate(2deg);
-o-transform: rotate(2deg);
transform: rotate(2deg);
top: 0;
z-index: -1;
}
#content:before {
-webkit-transform: rotate(-3deg);
-moz-transform: rotate(-3deg);
-ms-transform: rotate(-3deg);
-o-transform: rotate(-3deg);
transform: rotate(-3deg);
top: 0;
z-index: -2;
}
I've read that transform requires display:block . With this code the transformation isn't visible although the developer tools highlight the :before and :after elements. when i add z-index:2 on the #content element the stack is visible but the :after element is on top which has z-index: -1 . I guess it has to do with the .body .Is there a way to make this work? here is the fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/KVsjK/4/
Moving the z-index from #content to .container in your jsFiddle example seems to make it display correctly. jsfiddle
Check out the second answer (with 74+ votes) on this similar question: Is it possible to set the stacking order of pseudo-elements below their parent element?
Important quote to note:
The actual answer to this question is that you need to create a new stacking context on the parent of the element with the pseudo element (and you actually have to give it a z-index, not just a position).
Some further reading here at MDN: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/CSS/Understanding_z_index/The_stacking_context
Not sure if this is your whole problem, but you need to add content: '' to your :before and :after elements.
Hello ive managed to create a star with css but it is hiding the field that i wat to show on front of the star. I was wondering if anyone coud point me i the right direction to what i should do to fix it. thanks
<div class="views-field views-field-field-freebetamount">
<div class="field-content">
<div id="star12">£200</div>
</div>
</div>
css
.views-field-field-freebetamount {
color:white;
}
#star12 {
background: blue;
width: 40px;
height: 40px;
position: relative;
}
#star12:before, #star12:after {
content: "";
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
height: 40px;
width: 40px;
background: blue;
}
#star12:before {
-webkit-transform: rotate(30deg);
-moz-transform: rotate(30deg);
-ms-transform: rotate(30deg);
-o-transform: rotate(30deg);
}
#star12:after {
-webkit-transform: rotate(60deg);
-moz-transform: rotate(60deg);
-ms-transform: rotate(60deg);
-o-transform: rotate(60deg);
}
the freebetamount field should hopefully appear on top of the star. my limited css skills has lead me to try z-indexs but to no avail.
Anyone?
thanks
you have to define the negative z-index value in :before and :after pseudo element.
#star12 {
background: blue;
width: 40px;
height: 40px;
position: relative;
font-size:1.3em;
}
#star12:before, #star12:after {
content: "";
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
height: 40px;
width: 40px;
background: blue;
z-index:-1;
}
Check the Demo.
With css u need to set z-index: 100 or something like that to place something on top of the others
You're going to want to take a look at z-index. Whichever element you want to appear on top of another needs to have a higher CSS z-index number.
in css file;
#yourID {
z-index: 99;
}
When I use a webkit 3d transform on hover, only the top 50% of the hover area works, while the bottom 50% is unstable. I'm currently testing on Chrome (31.0.1650.63). Is it a bug? Is there any workaround?
Try to place your mouse on the top of the div and slowly bring it to the bottom.
HTML
<div class="hoverArea"></div>
<div class="flip">
<div class="front">front</div>
<div class="back">back</div>
</div>
CSS
.hoverArea, .flip, .front, .back {
width: 200px;
height: 200px;
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
}
.hoverArea {
z-index: 10;
}
.flip {
-webkit-transform-style: preserve-3d;
-webkit-transition: 0.5s;
-webkit-perspective: 800;
z-index: 9;
}
.front {
background-color: #f00;
-webkit-backface-visibility: hidden ;
}
.back {
background-color: #f0f;
-webkit-transform: rotatex(-180deg);
-webkit-backface-visibility: hidden ;
}
.hoverArea:hover + .flip {
-webkit-transform: rotatex(-180deg);
}
http://jsfiddle.net/4P53y/
You can fix it by removing the .hoverArea element and instead apply the :hover event on the .flip element.
.flip:hover {
-webkit-transform: rotatex(-180deg);
}
Demo
If you want to still use the .hoverArea element then you can use transform:translateZ(1px); on .hoverArea to make it function correctly. It makes the browser render the element more carefully
.hoverArea {
z-index: 10;
-webkit-transform:translateZ(1px);
}
Demo
Consider the following attempt to rotate a paragraph 90 degrees and position it so that the corner that was initially its top-left corner (and which therefore becomes its top-right corner after the rotation) ends up located at the top-right corner of the parent block.
HTML:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<body>
<div id="outer">
<p id="text">Foo bar</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
CSS:
#outer {
border: solid 1px red;
width:600px;
height: 600px;
position: relative;
}
#text {
transform: rotate(90deg);
position: absolute;
top: 0;
right: 0;
}
In Firefox 19.0.2 on OS X 10.6.8, it fails. This appears to be because, despite the order in which the CSS properties were given, the transformation is applied after the positioning. In other words, the browser:
places #text such that its top-right corner is located at the top-right corner of the parent block, but only then
rotates it, with the result that what is now its top-right corner is not located at the top-right corner of the parent block.
As a result, the transform-origin property isn't much use here. If, for instance, one used transform-origin: top right; then #text would need to be moved downwards by the width it had before it was rotated.
My question: is there a way to tell the browser to apply the CSS positioning properties after the rotation; and if not, then is there instead a way to move #text downwards (e.g. using top:) by the width it had before it was rotated?
NB. Ideally the solution should not require setting a fixed width: for #text, and must not require JavaScript.
You can apply more than one transform to an element, and the order does matter. This is the simplest solution: http://jsfiddle.net/aNscn/41/
#outer {
border: solid 1px red;
width:600px;
height: 600px;
position: relative;
}
#text {
background: lightBlue;
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
right: 0;
transform: translate(100%) rotate(90deg);
transform-origin: left top;
-webkit-transform: translate(100%) rotate(90deg);
-webkit-transform-origin: left top;
}
The transform origin is the point around which a transformation is applied. For example, the transform origin of the rotate() function is the center of rotation - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/transform-origin
Rotating -90deg.
.rotate {
position:absolute;
-webkit-transform-origin: left top;
/* Safari */
-webkit-transform: rotate(-90deg) translateX(-100%);
/* Firefox */
-moz-transform: rotate(-90deg) translateX(-100%);
/* IE */
-ms-transform: rotate(-90deg) translateX(-100%);
/* Opera */
-o-transform: rotate(-90deg) translateX(-100%);
}
Solved: here
This is the code I've added:
left: 100%;
width: 100%;
-webkit-transform-origin: left top;
I've also added some prefixed transform properties so it will be cross browser
-webkit-transform:rotate(90deg);
-moz-transform:rotate(90deg);
-ms-transform:rotate(90deg);
-o-transform:rotate(90deg);
transform:rotate(90deg);
How I did it:
I've found this question and, as the name of the website says, "fiddled" with the code to obtain this behavior. I guess the solution is left: 100%; instead of right: 0;.
(the width: 100%; is there because for some reason it wasn't 100% and the text would overflow to the next line)
You may want to try using CSS3 #keyframes animation. It will allow you to rotate and reposition in any order you like. Here is a tutorial that may help: [CSS-Tricks][1]
.container {
position: relative;
width: 200px;
height: 200px;
border: 1px solid red;
}
p {
border: 1px solid blue;
position: absolute;
top: auto;
right: 0;
display: inline-block;
margin: 0;
animation: 1s rotate 1s both;
}
#keyframes rotate {
0% {
transform-origin: top left;
transform: rotate(0deg);
right:0;
}
50% {
right:0;
}
100% {
transform-origin: top left;
transform: rotate(90deg);
right: -64px;
}
}
<div class="container">
<p>some text</p>
</div>
You might want to play around with the translate option which you can apply as the second transform function after rotate and place your element at the exact position that you want to.
There is no other way I guess to tell the browser to use the position properties after the transform function is used using plain css.
See this demo - http://codepen.io/anon/pen/klImq
Place "!important" at the end of the transform line.