This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Vertically Center HTML Element Within a Div of Dynamic Height
I am currently designing a website for which i need to vertically center some content. The design is pretty basic: a fixed height header (left-aligned and always at the top of the page), and underneath that vertically centered images in a horizontal row (yes, horizontal scrolling, i know).
Ideally i would want the vertical centering of the images to be based on the 100% height of the viewport - the header (so a dynamic height that prevents the content from overlapping the header).
An example of the website can be found on http://bit.ly/vl1XNY, which is currently using tables for layout. The css and html i used can be found there too (of course).
I am aware of various solutions for centering content vertically within a container of fixed height, however none of them have worked for me because i'm using variable height and do not want to use absolute positioning (to prevent overlap). I have looked around and tried the table-cell solution, the line-height one, and the absolute positioning one.
So far the only solution that has worked exactly as i intended was using tables. But i would like to refrain from using them. Is anyone aware of a valid css and html solution for this problem? Or at least a more graceful solution?
Wohh, talk about timing, i was looking for such a solution just a few minutes ago and stumbled upon an article on this subject exactly, you can read it all about it here: Centering in the Unknown.
You can easily modify your code to make it work like so:
CSS
#wrapper {
background: none repeat scroll 0 0 blue;
height: 100%;
text-align: center;
}
#wrapper:before {
content: "";
display: inline-block;
height: 100%;
vertical-align: middle;
}
.center {
display: inline-block;
padding: 10px 15px;
vertical-align: middle;
width: 460px;
}
HTML
<div id="wrapper">
<div class="center">
<img src="images/a_1.jpg" alt=" ">
</div>
<div class="center">
<img src="images/a_2.jpg" alt=" ">
</div>
</div>
You can try the following code:
<div style="display:table-cell;">
<img src="..." style="... vertical-align:middle;">
<img src="..." style="... vertical-align:middle;">
</div>
Please check the above code in the context of all HTML:
<style type="text/css">
html, body {height:100%;}
body {
margin:0; padding:0;
}
#header {
height:1.7em;
}
#content {
display:table-cell; vertical-align:middle; height:500px;
}
</style>
<div id="header"></div>
<div id="content">
<img src="..." style="... vertical-align:middle;">
<img src="..." style="... vertical-align:middle;">
</div>
This will only work with a fixed height table-cell, which can be achieved by calculating current viewport height with javascript
Related
This question already has answers here:
How do you stretch an image to fill a <div> while keeping the image's aspect-ratio?
(19 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I have an div
which I keep box shaped all the time using:
div{
float:left;
width: 447px;
height: 445px;
background-color: blue;
}
div:after{
content: "";
display: block;
padding-bottom:100%
}
the problem occurs when I want to add an image to the div
<div><img src="as.jpg"></div>
using:
img{
width:100%;
height:100%;
}
Does one of the two things:
the image does not cover whole div
the image does not cover whole div and box shape is ruined
Is there a way how to fix this? Demo
Use the image as background-image.
Example :
div {
display: block;
width: 500px;
height:500px;
background: url('http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/729223main_728322main_messenger_orbit_image20130218_2_full_full_full.jpg') no-repeat;
background-size: contain;
}
<div>
</div>
If you would like to use bootstrap framework, its simpler.
Example (using Bootstrap):
<link rel="stylesheet" href="http://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/bootstrap/3.3.6/css/bootstrap.min.css">
<!-- jQuery library -->
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.11.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<!-- Latest compiled JavaScript -->
<script src="http://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/bootstrap/3.3.6/js/bootstrap.min.js"></script>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-sm-3">
<img src="http://images.all-free-download.com/images/wallpapers_large/love_wallpaper_vector_3d_wallpaper_261.jpg" class="img-responsive" style="padding-top: 5px">
</div>
</div>
You may also do it the usual way, just set the height of the image.
Image in a div, with image height defined :
<div>
<img src="http://images.all-free-download.com/images/wallpapers_large/love_wallpaper_vector_3d_wallpaper_261.jpg" alt="image" height="200px" />
</div>
That is happening because the parent element, hence the div.small hasn't its height explicitly set.
For elements height is auto by default, meaning every element has height equal its contents. Contents of an element determine its height.
For an element to have height: 100%, hence to use percentage to fit in container's height, you should determine the height of the parent in absolute value.
Try this:
Try set for example height:400px; to div.small and height: 100%; for the image. Then the image will fit its container.
Check the fiddle here.
Update
Also, please check this tutorial by lynda.com, as it provides an explanation about elements height. A bit old, but very good stuff.
I have headlines that should appear next to floated images if there is enough space, and drop below the images if not. I don't have access to the HTML, so I must do this in strictly CSS. This is an example of an image and headline HTML I receive, and what it ends up looking like on an iPhone, for example:
<p>
<img src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com2852/1232.jpg" style="height:265px; width:350px; float: right;"/>
</p>
<h3>THE HEADLINE</h3>
I've fixed this when it comes to wrapping <p> content around an image using the following trick, which creates a fixed width element before each paragraph which acts as a minimum width:
p:before { content: ""; width: 10em; display: block; overflow:
hidden; }
However, this approach does not work for a header. Any ideas?
is that what you are looking for?
http://jsfiddle.net/zh4AV/1/
html:
<div id="container">
<img width="100" height="100"/>
<p>headline</p>
</div>
css:
#container{
max-width:200px;
}
img{
float:right
}
I'm just trying to put a div next to the other. I've found 2 different ways. You have them here below. But I don't know what of them is more correct..
<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
.jander1{
width: 100px;
height: 100px;
float: left;
border: 5px solid;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="jander1">jander1</div>
<div class="jander1">jander1</div>
</body>
</html>
<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
.jander1{
width: 100px;
height: 100px;
float: left;
border: 5px solid;
}
.jander2{
width: 100px;
height: 100px;
margin-left:100px;
border: 5px solid;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div id="container">
<div class="jander1">jander1</div>
<div class="jander2">jander2</div>
</body>
</html>
Javi
Floating both is simpler, and means that you don't have to be careful if you add more elements next to the first two. Floating just one is more unusual, more often used when you want actual float effects (like text wrapping around the floated element).
As krs1 said, you'll probably want to use some method to clear your floats. The easiest way is to have a containing element (as in your second example), and to apply either overflow: hidden or overflow: auto to it. This can have side effects (if content from the boxes overflows), but does not complicate your markup.
#container { overflow: hidden; }
#container div { width: 100px; height: 100px; float: left; }
First of all, think about your content. The markup of your content should reflect your content; don't let CSS determine the class attributes you use. The nature of that content also affects what CSS you should be using.
Case 1: Different content in the 2 <div> elements
If we're talking about different content between the two <div> elements, such as an image and some text...
<div class="profile-picture"><img src="http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0be84773790974af8d6a1d5d55801736?s=128&d=identicon&r=PG" alt="Profile picture for Richard" class="" /></div>
<div class="about-me">My name is Richard and I work as a software developer!</div>
... use different classes. The neither is a jander so don't include jargon class attributes to accomodate your CSS. Class attributes are element identifiers and should make semantic sense.
Case 1.1: The Left <div> has a fixed width
Once you get to your CSS, in a case like this one, the image has a fixed width which probably isn't subject to a lot of change; as such you can use technique #2 from your question to give the second <div> a margin-left:
.profile-picture {
width:80px;
height:80px;
float:left;
}
.about-me {
margin-left:81px;
}
Here is a JsFiddle example.
Case 1.2: The Left <div> has a variable width
But what if we need that image to some times be bigger, sometimes be small? What if we don't have knowledge of the image's size when we're writing our CSS?
<div class="profile-picture"><img src="http://media03.linkedin.com/mpr/mpr/shrink_80_80/p/1/000/09a/108/11e3bdd.jpg" alt="Profile picture for Richard" class="" /></div>
<div class="about-me">My name is Richard and I work as a software developer!<br />blah<br />blah<br />blah<br />blah<br />blah</div>
<div class="profile-picture"><img src="http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0be84773790974af8d6a1d5d55801736?s=128&d=identicon&r=PG" alt="Profile picture for Richard" class="" /></div>
<div class="about-me">My name is Richard and I work as a software developer!<br />blah<br />blah<br />blah<br />blah<br />blah</div>
... one of those images is 128px tall and the other is 80px tall.
We can then float the first <div> while simply targeting the other with anoverflow-x:hidden;`:
.profile-picture {
float:left;
}
.about-me {
overflow-x:hidden;
}
Here is another JsFiddle example.
Case 2: Similar content in the 2 <div> elements
Then by all means give them the same class attributes!
<div>
<div class="column">Here is content for column 1!</div>
<div class="column">Here is content for column 2!</div>
</div>
If they are supposed to behave identically, target them with the same rules and float them both to the left. If they don't behave identically, you can generalize the considerations above; do you know how wide that first <div> should be? If so, go ahead and use the margin-left. Otherwise use overflow-x.
If they work, they work. Option 1 looks good, I've run similar patterns before.
However you're going to run into issues if you attempt to put a block element beneath floating elements. After the second 'jander' class element add this:
<div style="clear:both"></div>
Since both div share styling, I would go with the first example. I would also add a clear:both to your #container since it is wrapping the two divs which are floating left.
Since you have a margin-left in your 2nd div only, I would either use a pseudo-class like #container div:first-child or an id/class to add the margin.
I understand that there are several questions here about this problem, but I have a rather unique predicament. I'm working on a template that has to include certain tags, and has to work with other elements that are added to the template after I upload the code. I wouldn't worry about this, but I am having a time trying to get the footer to display at the bottom of the page. I can't alter anything about the footer, and it displays at the bottom of the div I'm using as a wrapper. The problem is if I set the height to a fixed value, there can only be so many comments made before the comment div overlaps the footer. I've tried several different solutions including setting the container div's height to auto, overflow to auto, bottom margin to 65 (height of the footer), and setting the overflow to scroll for the Comments div (resulted in very loose comments).
Here is an example of the problem and the template as it stands.
Here is the CSS styling for the container div (div id=Main)
#Main {
margin: 0px auto auto auto;
background-color: #808080;
font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Tahoma, sans-serif;
font-size: medium;
font-variant: normal;
color: #FFFFFF;
width: 900px;
position: relative;
}
Here's the CSS styling for the Comments div
#Comments {
background-color: #008080;
width: 450px;
height: auto;
top: 1750px;
left: 450px;
position: absolute;
overflow: auto;
}
And here's how the divs are stacked in the body
<div id="Main">
...
<div id="Comment_Form">
<!--[COMMENT_FORM=400,200]-->
</div>
<div id="Comments">
<!--[COMMENTS=400]-->
Comments
</div>
</div>
Since the page is going to be image heavy, I'm trying to keep the code lightweight (and probably failing at it pretty badly).
Thank you for your help and I'll post the template as of now if anyone needs it.
EDIT:
Okay, it's occurred to me that a) I need to redo the CSS and the divs that I have down, and b) I have no clue how to do it using pure CSS, or at least with out fighting it as one of you has said. What I'm trying to achieve is this:
I have no clue How to do this. and any help would be greatly appreciated (as well as any way to avoid having each and every element in its own div)
You seem to be really fighting your CSS on that page. Most of your elements are positioned absolutely within your #Main class. This will force you to specify a lot more layout than you really want to. It also means that if you have a variable quantity of comments or dynamic content, you'll find it that much harder to expand your content containers without others getting in the way.
I would strongly urge you to look at CSS frameworks or approaches that take advantage of grid layouts such as Nicole Sullivan's OOCSS framework.
You'll find that the structure (which has plenty of good, workable examples) is easy to follow and lends itself much more readily to the sorts of layouts that you're trying to achieve.
I hope this is helpful.
Here is a very basic layout that you can use.
In your CSS:
#header, #content, #comments{
margin: 0 auto;
width: 960px;
overflow: hidden;
}
#author-comments{
width: 100%;
}
#comment-box{
float: left;
width: 50%;
}
#comment-list{
float: right;
width: 50%;
}
In your markup:
<div id="header">
Header
</div>
<div id="content">
Contents
<div>
<div id="comments">
<div id="author-comments">
Author comments
</div>
<div id="comment-box">
Comment box
</div>
<div id="comment-list">
Comment list
</div>
</div>
It's really important that you use markup that makes sense without the styles. Don't see divs as plain boxes but as actual content containers that give structure to your document.
On a side note, you mentioned that you were concerned about the ammount of divs to keep your file light, compensating for the amount of images you're using. Don't worry about this. Text documents (such as HTML) are nothing compared to images in terms of file size. However, his doesn't mean you should throw markup as if it was free ;)
One last thing. I noticed that you are using <img> elements to render your decoration images. Try using CSS to set them as background images in the corresponding <div>s. This not only will help you to make cleaner and easier to implement structures, but also will draw a line between the images that represent content and those that represent decoration.
I'll write without any testing how I would code the layout on your image:
HTML:
<div id="header" class="centered"></div>
<div id="content" class="centered">
<div id="navigation"></div>
<div id="content"></div>
</div>
<div id="comments" class="centered">
<div id="author-comments" class="centered"></div>
<div class="centered">
<div id="comment-field"></div>
<div id="user-comments"></div>
</div>
</div>
CSS:
* { margin:0px; padding:0px }
html { height:100% }
body { height:100% }
.centered { position:relative; margin:0 auto; width:960px }
#header { height:100px; background:#333 }
#content { overflow:hidden }
#author-comment { overflow:hidden; margin:30px auto }
#comment-field { position:relative; float:left; width:480px; overflow:hidden }
#user-comments { position:relative; float:left; width:480px; overflow:hidden }
Sorry, got no time to test now, but on first view, I don't see any problems with this code - write comments, if something doesn't work
I have a absolutely position div that is overlapping a containers background due to it having a larger height. This div is sharing the container with a body div that's sitting happily to the left of it.
Is there a way to extend the container to be the height of the absolutely positioned div, rather than the body content?
Or should I just float the divs side by side and chuck a <div style="clear: both"></div> at the bottom of the two? Seems like a messy hack to get a container to extend :/
EDIT: Comments don't seem to like code structure. So I'll edit it into here as well.
The layout is:
<div id="content">
<div class="container">
<div id="header"></div>
<div id="main">
<div id="column-1"></div>
<div id="column-2"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
#content has a repeated background and #container sets the fixed width of the page. #header sits up to for the links and #main holds the two columns which have the main content for the page. I can't get those two columns to sit next to each other (float / absolutely) whilst having the #content's background repeat down below them
With this layout:
<div id="content">
<div class="container">
<div id="header"></div>
<div id="main">
<div id="column-1"></div>
<div id="column-2"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
your basic CSS should be something like:
html, body, div { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0 none; }
body, #content { height: 100%; }
#main { overflow: hidden; }
#column-1 { float: left; width: 300px; }
#column-2 { float: left; width: 600px; }
You said you wanted the background image appearing below the content. From this I assume you mean you want the page to be full screen height (minimum).
The point of absolute positioning is that it removes the element from the normal flow so no you can't have it's "container" extend to include it because technically it has no container.
Absolute positioning has its place but 9 times out of 10 I get better results with a float-based layout. But I can't really say more without more information.