I have a sidebar DIV on my web page that has buttons. I have the width of the sidebar set as follows:
width: 20%;
but when the browser size is reduce then there's sometime not enough space for the buttons. Is it possible for me to have the width as 20% but also specify a minimum in px?
Yes. This is pretty common, too. Have fun!
And protip: you can always just try and find out ;)
Yes. The W3C CSS recommendation generally does not require that units for different dimensions like width and min-width be the same. (Not quite relevant side note: You can even mix different units for dimensions like padding, e.g. padding: 2px 1em;.)
Using “min width”.
min-width: 20px; for example.
But if you want its width to always be at least the size of whatever is contained, consider using display: table-cell;
Related
What is major differences in using these css rules
div{width:100px; overflow:hidden;}
And
div{max-width:100px; overflow:hidden!important;}
Is there going to be any cross-compatibility Issues.
max-width is great for stating "don't go any bigger than this, but it's OK if it's smaller".
This might be great if you were doing say a speech bubble that could be dynamic in size (depending on content) and you wanted the div surrounding speech bubble to vary.
width on the other hand says "the must be 100px", which means even if the content within the div is smaller, the surrounding div will still be 100px.
Example:
http://cdn.gottabemobile.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/photo1.png
max-width: 100px is not different from width: 100px if you do not have width specified. And the !important flag only prevents from overriding the property, so it depends on the context if that makes a difference.
I have a %-based grid with a fixed-width (for the moment). The code is based off of this css-tricks article: http://css-tricks.com/dont-overthink-it-grids/
Works great until I have a column that has multiple responsive images in it that are the same size and need to be stacked next to each other (floated). Because of padding issues and what-not, I can not get all three images to come out the same width and height, despite the fact that they start that way. The last one is always taller. Here is a codepen showing the issue: http://codepen.io/joshmath/pen/dEuIv
Any help with this would be really appreciated. I've run into this issue before and always just end up hacking my way through it on a case-by-case basis. Thanks!
For whatever reason, if you remove the padding-right: 0 style from the last element, it fixes the issue.
It looks like you're trying to add spacing between the elements using padding. What I tried instead using the Chrome dev tools was to use a margin instead of padding, and then slightly reducing the width of your elements to around 29.5%. That seemed to work.
just add the following to your css. set the size to whatever you like and all images within your grid will remain that size, if they need to grow / shrink use height/width percents instead.
.grid img
{
width: 350px;
height: 400px;
}
I need to make ui controls panel, that has 100% width and gradient background. UI elements on this control panel should have width 1000px and should be centered.
For a moment i have two elements:
panel (width 100%, gradient background), global wrapper
panel-wrapper (width 1000px, transparent background), is placed inside "panel" element, contains UI elements.
It works brilliant in all browsers i need, but i really don't like to use two HTML elements, when logically it should be just one. Perhaps it is possible to have one element "panel" with fixed width (1000px) and auto-padding, that will cover all free space to the left and to the right? (i've made an image to show it if my explanation is crazy :))
It is possible?
You could potentially use the calc() function, though it isn't highly browser compliant.
Here is a quick example and more information on compatibility and usage can be found here.
*I made the example in Firefox, didn't test it elsewhere.
Just for a quick code example, the following shows one solution:
div {
width: 100px;
background-color: blue;
height: 100px;
padding-left: calc(50% - 50px);
padding-right: calc(50% - 50px);
}
The challenge is you can't really combine percentages and fixed widths with padding in the traditional sense, since the padding is added to the total width.
If the total width is 100%, and you want the content in the center to be 500px, you can't calculate the padding.
With CC3, though, you can use the box-sizing to change 'where' the padding is placed in the box model.
http://www.css3.info/preview/box-sizing/
Alas, I still don't think that will give you want you want simply due to there still being an unknown variable in play (the width of the container that the 100% width object is in).
In the end, we can sometimes over think these solutions in the name of over-optimization. IN this case, an extra div seems perfectly acceptable and, likely, the proper solution.
Why padding ?
You could set left and right margins to auto and that would make the div centered..
So just set
.panel{
width:1000px;
margin:0 auto;
}
I have several divs on a page that all have the same width but different heights. They are all in one div, the #note1PreviewDiv. They all share the class .note, which has the following css code (among other):
.note{
width: 160px;
padding: 10px;
margin: 10px;
background: #e3f0ff;
float: left;
}
I thought with float: left; they would all automatically align so that they are well aligned among each other.
Here's a preview of what it looks like:
Current state http://posti.sh/img/ist.png
And here's what the positioning should be like:
Desired state http://posti.sh/img/soll.png
I think you get the idea. Somehow it seems to me the height of the leftmost div pushes the other divs in the second row to the right - but that's only guessing.
Thanks for your help!
Charles
You're not going to be able to do this easily with CSS only.
CSS3 has a new feature called column layout, but browser support is not great. IE9 and below don't support it.
See http://designshack.net/articles/css/masonry/ and the last example for CSS3 solution.
Have a look at these js / jQuery options for easier implementation and browser support:
masonry
isotope
vanilla masonry which doesn't need jQuery.
wookmark
The kind of lay out you want is really difficult (not possible?) without going for a column based approach and adding additional block elements to represent each column. This obviously won't work with a flexible number of columns if you want a dynamic layout based on screen size.
That said, you could always use JavaScript to dynamically place elements into columns, and get it to match the screen size.
Is the height of the parent container given a fixed value? If it is, try setting the height of the parent container to auto, and the overlow propery to hidden.
I am trying to make a h2 header for sidebar widgets but I want the width of the div class to be whatever width the content becomes. It seems I can't just set a width because those headlines with longer content then shorter content makes it break.
How can I simply make width stretch/change depending on the length of content there is? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
As far as I know, display: inline-block is what you probably need. That will make it seem like it's sort of inline but still allow you to use things like margins and such.
If you are coming here, there is high chance width: min-content or width: max-content can fix your problem. This can force an element to use the smallest or largest space the browser could choose…
This is the modern solution. Here is a small tutorial for that.
There is also fit-content, which often works like min-content, but is more flexible. (But also has worse browser support.)
This is a quite new feature and some browsers do not support it yet, but browser support is growing. See the current browser status here.
The easiest is:
width: fit-content;
If display: inline; isn't working, try out display: inline-block;. :)
I faced the same issue and I resolved it by using: max-width: fit-content;
The best way to do this is to set display: inline;. Note, however, that in inline display, you lose access to some layout properties, such as manual height and vertical margins, but this doesn't appear to be a problem for your page.
width: -moz-fit-content;
width: fit-content;