I have an absolutely-positioned DIV that I need to trap onclick events for. It turns out that, in IE7, the DIV seems to have no 'footprint' for things like clicking and even cursor. For example:
div {
width: 200px; height: 200px;
position: absolute;
border: 10px solid black;
cursor: pointer;
}
In IE7, that DIV has no 'footprint': it doesn't react to onclick(), and its cursor doesn't change to the pointer. Curiously, it DOES handle both those over its border - hence the large border in this example. Setting a background-color:
div { background-color: #fff; }
fixes the problem. But, in this case, that's not possible - I need the DIV to have a transparent background.
I've come across this bug in the past, but I cannot for the life of me remember the IE hack to fix it.
Try using a transparent background image.
I would suggest using a 2x2 or bigger .gif that is all transparent pixels. Set it to repeat on x and y and IE shouldn't have an issue with the clicks.
background: transparent url(path/to/spacer.gif) repeat left top;
/* Not all of that is necessary, but I have a tendency to define it anyway. */
Had the same problem and didnt found a better solution than the transparent gif. Note that this problem also occured in IE8 for me. You don't have to use a 2x2 px gif, 1x1 px is enough.
Related
Is there any way of getting rid of the scroll track entirely? Or making it overlay the content rather than pushing it aside? Like iOS/Lion scrollbars?
The following gets pretty close, but even though the track is transparent, the content of the scrollable region is pushed over and the page background shows through.
::-webkit-scrollbar {
width:8px;
height:8px;
-webkit-border-radius: 4px;
}
::-webkit-scrollbar-track,
::-webkit-scrollbar-track-piece {
background-color:transparent;
}
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb {
background-color: rgba(053, 057, 071, 0.3);
width: 6px;
height: 6px;
-webkit-border-radius:4px;
}
Hmm, I thought I answered this one previously, maybe not:
Hide the overflow on the body
wrap the entire content of the site or whatever you're scrolling with a div,
Incude css properties for the
div (overflow:scroll or overflow-y:scroll).
Now you can set the track css to any opacity using rgba(0,0,0,0.3) because the scroll is not part of the body.
Another tip for customizing firefox scroll bar if you want to experiment is to:
Do the overflow thing and to overlay the scrollbar (via z-index) with a transparent div of whatever color you like,
Position the div over the entire scroll section (probably something like position:absolute; right:0; if you're using the scroll for the entire window)
Use pointer-events: none; on the divs css to make it semi-transparent.
It will give the firefox scroll a little color/ texture. (May be ideal to force the scroll to the right for comparability)
I've not tried it yet but it's do-able
Is there a way to position a background image a certain number of pixels from the right of its element?
For example, to position something a certain number of pixels (say, 10) from the left, this is how I'd do it:
#myElement {
background-position: 10px 0;
}
I found this CSS3 feature helpful:
/* to position the element 10px from the right */
background-position: right 10px top;
As far as I know this is not supported in IE8. In latest Chrome/Firefox it works fine.
See Can I use for details on the supported browsers.
Used source: http://tanalin.com/en/blog/2011/09/css3-background-position/
Update:
This feature is now supported in all major browsers, including mobile browsers.
!! Outdated answer, since CSS3 brought this feature
Is there a way to position a background image a certain number of pixels from the right of its element?
Nope.
Popular workarounds include
setting a margin-right on the element instead
adding transparent pixels to the image itself and positioning it top right
or calculating the position using jQuery after the element's width is known.
The easiest solution is to use percentages. This isn't exactly the answer you were looking for since you asked for pixel-precision, but if you just need something to have a little padding between the right edge and the image, giving something a position of 99% usually works well enough.
Code:
/* aligns image to the vertical center and horizontal right of its container with a small amount of padding between the right edge */
div.middleleft {
background: url("/images/source.jpg") 99% center no-repeat;
}
Outdated answer: It is now implemented in major browsers, see the
other answers to this question.
CSS3 has modified the specification of background-position so that it will work with different origin point. Unfortunately, I can't find any evidence that it is implemented yet in any major browsers.
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#the-background-position
See example 12.
background-position: right 3em bottom 10px;
As proposed here, this is a pretty cross browser solution that works perfectly:
background: url('/img.png') no-repeat right center;
border-right: 10px solid transparent;
I used it since the CSS3 feature of specifying offsets proposed in the answer marked as solving the question is not supported in browsers so well yet. E.g.
The most appropriate answer is the new four-value syntax for background-position, but until all browsers support it your best approach is a combination of earlier responses in the following order:
background: url(image.png) no-repeat 97% center; /* default, Android, Sf < 6 */
background-position: -webkit-calc(100% - 10px) center; /* Sf 6 */
background-position: right 10px center; /* Cr 25+, FF 13+, IE 9+, Op 10.5+ */
A simple but dirty trick is to simply add the offset you want to the image you are using as background. it's not maintainable, but it gets the job done.
This will work on most modern browsers...apart from IE (browser support). Even though that page lists >= IE9 as supported, my tests didn't agree with that.
You can use the calc() css3 property like so;
.class_name {
background-position: calc(100% - 10px) 50%;
}
For me this is the cleanest and most logical way to achieve a margin to the right. I also use a fallback of using border-right: 10px solid transparent; for IE.
Ok If I understand what your asking you would do this;
You have your DIV container called #main-container and .my-element that is within it. Use this to get you started;
#main-container {
position:relative;
}
/*To make the element absolute - floats above all else within the parent container do this.*/
.my-element {
position:absolute;
top:0;
right:10px;
}
/*To make the element apart of elements, something tangible that affects the position of other elements on the same level within the parent then do this;*/
.my-element {
float:right;
margin-right:10px;
}
By the way, it better practice to use classes if you referencing a lower level element within a page (I assume you are hence my name change above.
background-position: calc(100% - 8px);
The CSS3 specification allowing different origins for background-position is now supported in Firefox 14 but still not in Chrome 21 (apparently IE9 partly supports them, but I've not tested it myself)
In addition to the Chrome issue that #MattyF referenced there's a more succinct summary here:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=95085
If you have proportioned elements, you could use:
.valid {
background-position: 98% center;
}
.half .valid {
background-position: 96% center;
}
In this example, .valid would be the class with the picture and .half would be a row with half the size of the standard one.
Dirty, but works as a charm and it's reasonably manageable.
If you would like to use this for adding arrows/other icons to a button for example then you could use css pseudo-elements?
If it's really a background-image for the whole button, I tend to incorporate the spacing into the image, and just use
background-position: right 0;
But if I have to add for example a designed arrow to a button, I tend to have this html:
Read more
And tend to do the following with CSS:
.read-more{
position: relative;
padding: 6px 15px 6px 35px;//to create space on the right
font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial;
}
.read-more:after{
content: '';
display: block;
width: 10px;
height: 15px;
background-image: url('../images/btn-white-arrow-right.png');
position: absolute;
right: 12px;
top: 10px;
}
By using the :after selector, I add a element using CSS just to contain this small icon. You could do the same by just adding a span or <i> element inside the a-element. But I think this is a cleaner way of adding icons to buttons and it is cross-browser supported.
you can check out the fiddle here:
http://codepen.io/anon/pen/PNzYzZ
use center right as the position then add a transparent border to offset it?
If you have a fixed width element and know the width of your background image, you can simply set the background-position to : the element's width - the image's width - the gap you want on the right.
For example : with a 100px-wide element and a 300px-wide image, to get a gap of 10px on the right, you set it to 100-300-10=-210px :
#myElement {
background:url(my_image.jpg) no-repeat -210px top;
width:100px;
}
And you get the rightmost 80 pixels of your image on the left of your element, and a gap of 20px on the right.
I know it can sound stupid but sometimes it saves the time... I use that much in a vertical manner (gap at bottom) for navigation links with text below image.
Not sure it applies to your case though.
my problem was I needed the background image to stay the same distance from the right border when the window is resized i.e. for tablet / mobile etc
My fix is to use a percenatge like so:
background-position: 98% 6px;
and it sticks in place.
yes! well to position a background image as though 0px from the right-hand side of the browser instead of the left - i use:
background-position: 100% 0px;
I have been struggling to find out why this rollover is not behaving as it should in IE8.
Go here: http://baked-beans.tv in IE8, you'll see that the rollover only works on the lower half of the thumbnails.
Btw, this is not activated by an <a> tag but by a :hover for the <div>.
What I can't figure out is why it works on only the lower half of the div, below the image, but not on the image (the image is not z-indexed so thats not the issue)
As soon as I change the background-color to anything else besides transparent, it works 100%. So this just blows my mind... why the bottom half, but not the top half, and only when I set bg-color to transparent?! Gotta love Internet Explorer.
This works as it should on every other browser (the entire square acts as a rollover)
Here's the CSS:
.cat_rollout {
position: absolute;
float:left;
top:0;
left:0;
min-height:274px;
min-width:274px;
font-size: 0;
background-color: transparent;
}
.cat_rollout:hover {
background-image: url(images/rollover.png);
min-width:254px;
min-height:242px;
padding-left: 20px;
color: white;
font-size: 21px;
font-weight: normal;
line-height: 24px;
padding-top: 34px;
}
Try faking a background image or setting it to a blank.gif instead of making it transparent.
background:url(blank.gif);
See http://work.arounds.org/issue/22/positioned-anchor-not-clickable-ie6/
The problem is that for some time (a week? two weeks?) IE has changed the way it interprets background-color. It seems that you cannot say, that the color is transparent, rather the whole background. So you should change background-color: transparent into background: transparent. Very nasty.
The same problem has been witnessed, where hovering on a transparent element's blank area doesn't make css rules related to hover take effects. The problem is fixed with giving the element the following style.
background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.001);
You could also try changing the hover selector to :
.thumb_container:hover .cat_rollout {...}
so that the parent containment div is the element reacting to the hover.
You can use an 1x1 transparent gif as a datauri if you'd rather.
background-image:url();
Up to you which one you'd prefer, this works and is an alternative to the selected answer.
I don't know how it has occurred and for the life of me, I cannot fix it.
I have a div which is hidden using display: none;
When a user clicks, I set display: block which shows a new layer.
The problem is that all the text is showing through from the layer behind it... How do I force no transparency from a div behind?
I have set no transparency or opacity in my css.
The layer I am showing only has the following settings:
.display {
background: rgb(255, 255, 255) url(/template/mobile/images/dot.gif) repeat left top;
display:none;
width: 250px;
height:100px;
border: 1px solid rgb(20, 20, 20);
margin-left: -5px;
margin-top: -100px;
float: left;
z-index: 999;
}
As you can see:
I've tried using a 1px background image - still transparent
I've set the background color to white - still transparent
I've tried setting the z-index so it is on top of everything - still transparent
I don't know why it is and how i stop it???
NOTE: I have deactivated the live site and this code can be viewed in testing at: http://dev.cutmyhair.com.au/search_results.php?keyword=waverley
NOTE: This issue is only occurring on the .mobi version of the site (so you need to view it on a mobile phone OR using a mobi emulator)
I was able to reproduce this using FF3 and IE8.
You need to set position to either absolute or relative.
.display {
position: absolute;
...
}
or
.display {
position: relative;
...
}
Are you sure it's a transparency issue? I see another problem:
height:100px
margin-top: -100px
This two together would make your div stay totally out of the page, if the float property is influenced by other elements around. Maybe post here the html portion and other related css rules, so I can understand the situation better. Anyway, first of all, be sure that your div is in the place you think it is, by using a good html/css debugging tool like Firebug or Chrome dev console.
Try using display:inline-block (instead of block). It seems to work better (more intuitively) with floated elements.
What is the difference between border and outline properties in CSS?
If there is no difference, then why are there two properties for the same thing?
From: http://webdesign.about.com/od/advancedcss/a/outline_style.htm
The CSS outline property is a confusing property. When you first learn about it, it's hard to understand how it is even remotely different from the border property. The W3C explains it as having the following differences:
Outlines do not take up space.
Outlines may be non-rectangular.
In addition to some other answers... here are a few more differences I can think of:
1) Rounded corners
border supports rounded corners with the border-radius property. outline doesn't.
div {
width: 150px;
height: 150px;
margin: 20px;
display: inline-block;
position: relative;
}
.border {
border-radius: 75px;
border: 2px solid green;
}
.outline {
outline: 2px solid red;
border-radius: 75px;
-moz-outline-radius: 75px;
outline-radius: 75px;
}
.border:after {
content: "border supports rounded corners";
position: absolute;
bottom: 0;
transform: translateY(100%);
}
.outline:after {
content: "outline doesn't support rounded corners";
position: absolute;
bottom: 0;
transform: translateY(100%);
}
<div class="border"></div>
<div class="outline"></div>
FIDDLE
(NB: Although firefox has the -moz-outline-radius property which allows rounded corners on outline... this property it is not defined in any CSS standard, and is not supported by other browsers (source))
2) Styling one side only
border has properties to style each side with border-top:, border-left: etc.
outline can't do this. There's no outline-top: etc. It's all or nothing. (see this SO post)
3) offset
outline supports offset with the property outline-offset. border doesn't.
.outline {
margin: 100px;
width: 150px;
height: 150px;
outline-offset: 20px;
outline: 2px solid red;
border: 2px solid green;
background: pink;
}
<div class="outline"></div>
FIDDLE
Note: All major browsers support outline-offset except Internet Explorer
Further to other answers, outlines are usually used for debugging. Opera has some nice user CSS styles that use the outline property to show you where all the elements are in a document.
If you're trying to find out why an element isn't appearing where you expected or at the size you expected, add a few outlines and see where the elements are.
As already mentioned, outlines do not take up space. When you add a border, the element's total width/height in the document increases, but that doesn't happen with outline. Also you can't set outlines on specific sides like borders; it's all or nothing.
tldr;
The W3C explains it as having the following differences:
Outlines do not take up space.
Outlines may be non-rectangular.
Source
Outline should be used for accessibility
It should also be noted that outline's primary purpose is accessibility. Setting it to outline: none should be avoided.
If you must remove it it maybe a better idea to provide alternative styling:
I’ve seen quite a few tips on how to remove the focus indicator by using outline:none or outline:0. Please do not do this, unless you replace the outline with something else that makes it easy to see which element has keyboard focus. Removing the visual indicator of keyboard focus will give people who rely on keyboard navigation a really hard time navigating and using your site.
Source: "Do Not Remove the Outline from Link and Form Controls", 365 Berea Street
More Resources
http://outlinenone.com/
A practical use of outline deals with transparency. If you have a parent element with a background, but want a child element's border to be transparent so that the parent's background will show through, you must use "outline" rather than "border." While a border can be transparent, it will show the child's background, not the parent's.
In other words, this setting created the following effect:
outline: 7px solid rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.2);
From W3 School Site
The CSS border properties allow you to specify the style and color of an element's border.
An outline is a line that is drawn around elements (outside the borders) to make the element "stand out".
The outline shorthand property sets all the outline properties in one declaration.
The properties that can be set, are (in order): outline-color, outline-style, outline-width.
If one of the values above are missing, e.g. "outline:solid #ff0000;", the default value for the missing property will be inserted, if any.
Check here for more information :
http://webdesign.about.com/od/advancedcss/a/outline_style.htm
Border is created inside the element, where as outline is created outside the element. So border is computed along with the width and height of the element, while outline draws outside the element.
A little bit of an old question, but worth mentioning a Firefox rendering bug (still present as of Jan '13) where the outline will render on the outside of all child elements even if they overflow their parent (through negative margins, box-shadows, etc.)
You can fix this with:
.container {
position: relative;
}
.container:before {
content: '';
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
outline: 1px solid #ff0000;
}
Super unfortunate that it's still not fixed. I much prefer outlines in many cases since they do not add to the dimensions of an element, saving you from always having to consider border widths when setting dimensions of an element.
After all, which is simpler?
.container {
width: 960px;
height: 300px;
outline: 3px solid black;
}
Or:
.container {
width: 954px;
height: 294px;
border: 3px solid black;
}
It is also worth noting, that W3C's outline is IE's border, since IE does not implement W3C box model.
In w3c box model, the border is exclusive of element's width and height. In IE it is inclusive.
Differences between border and outline:
Border is part of the box model so it counts against the element's size.
Outline is not part of the box model so it doesn't affect nearby elements.
Demo:
#border {
border: 10px solid black;
}
#outline {
outline: 10px solid black;
}
<html>
<body>
<span id="border">Border</span>Other text<br><br>
<span id="outline">Outline</span>Other text
</body>
</html>
Other differences:
The outline is displayed outside the border.
Outlines cannot have rounded corners; borders can.
I've made a little piece of css/html code just to see the difference between both.
outline is better to inclose potential overflowing child elements, especially into an inline container.
border is much more adapted for block-behaving elements.
Fiddle for you sir!
The outline property in CSS draws a line around the outside of an element. It's similar to border except that:
It always goes around all the sides, you can't specify particular
sides It's not a part of the box model, so it won't effect the
position of the element or adjacent elements
Source: https://css-tricks.com/almanac/properties/o/outline/
As a practical example of using "outline", the faint dotted border that follows the system focus on a webpage (eg. if you tab through the the links) can be controlled using the outline property (at least, I know it can in Firefox, not tried other browsers).
A common "image replacement" technique is to use, for example:
<div id="logo">Foo Widgets Ltd.</div>
with the following in the CSS:
#logo
{
background: url(/images/logo.png) center center no-repeat;
}
#logo a
{
display: block;
text-indent: -1000em;
}
The problem being that when the focus reaches the tag, the outline heads off 1000em to the left. Outline can allow you to turn off the focus outline on such elements.
I believe that the IE Developer Toolbar is also using something like outline "under the hood" when highlighting elements for inspection in "select" mode. That shows well the fact that "outline" takes up no space.
think about outline as a border that a projector draw outside something as a border is an actual object around that thing.
a projection can easily overlap but border don't let you pass.
some times when i use grid+%width, border will change the scaling on view port,for example a div with width:100% in a parent with width:100px fills the parent completely, but when i add border:solid 5px to div it make the div smaller to make space for border(although it's rare and work-aroundable!) but with outline it doesn't have this problem as outline is more virtual :D it's just a line outside the element
but the problem is if you don't do spacing properly it would overlap with other contents.
to make it short:
outline pros:
it doesn't mess with spacing and positions
cons:
high chance of overlapping
Google web.dev has a good explaintion for Box Model.
The border box surrounds the padding box and its space is occupied by the border value. The border box is the bounds of your box and the border edge is the limit of what you can visually see. The border property is used to visually frame an element.
The margin box, is the space around your box, defined by the margin rule on your box. Properties such as outline and box-shadow occupy this space too because they are painted on top, so they don't affect the size of our box. You could have an outline-width of 200px on our box and everything inside and including the border box would be exactly the same size.
Copied from W3Schools:
Definition and Usage
An outline is a line that is drawn
around elements (outside the borders)
to make the element "stand out".