The title pretty much says it all. There are tons of scripts out there that do so, but most of them are so bloated and end up messing up script, and just use info from alt tags. My script goes as follows:
<ul>
<li style="display:block">
<img src="images/portfolio/talktostrangers/1.jpg" />
<div class="caption">
<span class="projecttitle">Talk to Strangers</span>A social awareness campaign that proposes people talk to strangers on trains, subways, elevators, & the like.
</div>
</li>
</ul>
The preview can be viewed here to get an idea of where it will go: http://www.studioimbrue.com/beta
If I understand correctly, you just want the caption to show when hovering over an image. The best way to do that is with javascript. I recommend using a js Framework, like jQuery, which makes it really easy. You can just include the jQuery source code and put this in a script tag or an external file within the head of your document.
$(document).ready(function(){
$('li img').hover(function(){
$(this).siblings('div.caption').fadeIn('slow');
}, function(){
$(this).siblings('div.caption').fadeOut('slow');
});
});
Then it's all about css styling, opacity, background-color, text-color. Up to you.
Regarding the 100% width in the title of your question, because it's in a DIV tag, it should automatically fill 100% of it's parent, the LI.
Related
Hy, I have the following situation:
I am trying to change the design of my feedly-index page. (I can not change the HTML)
And I am facing a problem I coulnd't solve the past two hours.
In the HTML there are some div elements with random IDs and '_content' at the end.
Within these div's there is an img tag - what I want to do is to wrap this img-tag with an anchor-tag to make it clickable.
Situation:
<div id='{SOME_RANDOM_ID}_content'>
// a bit of text, a few <br> and some other tags here
<img src='LINK_TO_AN_IMAGE'>
</div>
What I want as outcome:
<div id='{SOME_RANDOM_ID}_content'>
// a bit of text, a few <br> and some other tags here
<a href='LINK_TO_AN_IMAGE'>
<img src='LINK_TO_AN_IMAGE'>
</a>
</div>
Is this even possible with CSS?
I could make it work with JavaScript, but the div's are loaded dynamically via AJAX:/
So the JavaScript Script would just run for the current div's but not the one which are loaded dynamically.
It's not possible with just CSS because CSS is meant or styling the page and not or adding dynamic elements to the page.
But we can do it using JS.
As you are creating those elements using ajax call. On the success callback of the ajax call, you can wrap the image with a tags.
for example:
$.ajax({
url : "/make.php"
}).done(function() {
var images = $("div img");
$.each(images, function() {
$(this).replaceWith($("<a href=''>"+this.outerHTML+"</a>")); //construct url dynamically via some variable
});
});
DEMO
If you are not able to edit the html this could be tricky.
It can't be done with pure css... css can't create links.. I mean it could be possible with js i suppose, besides that if the ids are random it makes it even more difficult.
--edit additional--
If you could wrap the whole area that holds the divs inside a div then you might have a chance with jquery...
e.g:
<div id="holderdiv">
<div id='{SOME_RANDOM_ID}_content'>
// a bit of text, a few <br> and some other tags here
<img src='LINK_TO_AN_IMAGE'>
</div>
</div>
You can then use jquery to make all instances of #holderdiv > div > img a link to the image path?
I've got this structure:
<div id="d1">
Text
<div id="d2">Word</div>
My other text
</div>
Now, I want that on click to #hide:target, div#d2 disappear.
Can I do this with CSS?
You can do this with CSS!
If you change your HTML markup a little bit you can achieve this by using CSS :target
#d2:target {
display: none;
}
<div id="d1">
Text
<div id="d2">Word
My other text
</div>
You can do this with CSS but you need to use javascript to change the CSS (style) of the element.
This solution requires no plug ins (such as jQuery).
<div id="d1">
Text
<div id="d2">Word</div>
My other text
</div>
If you would like it to be completely functionless.
<div id="d1">
Text
<div id="d2">Word</div>
My other text
</div>
You should probably use javascript or jQuery to accomplish this.
$('#object').click(function(){
$('#tohide').hide();
});
To make it specific for this (local scope)
if($('#d2 a').attr('href')=='#hide'){
$('#d2 a').click(function(){
$('#d2').hide();
});
}
But that isn't the proper way to do it. Use classes.
You can do this with jQuery simply:
$(document).ready(function(){
$("a").click(function(){
$("#d2").hide();
});
});
I strongly believe that CSS is for style, and Javascript is for function (and HTML is for markup).
I have made the mistake of using :target and building functionality with CSS where it shouldn't be, and trust me, you are going to make a nightmare for yourself with these bad habits down the road. jQuery is going to be your best friend in situations like this. It works on ALL browsers (that support javascript) and you won't have your functionality breaking down in edge-cases and your users pissed off. Do what Jack says and use some simple jQuery. you can also use .addClass and .removeClass to change the css in other ways than just hide/show.
With css I think it isn't possible, but you could use this code that I am letting here, it is based in javascript, that can be really usefull in this situations. I am not so good at explaining but for these type of questions I recomend learning Javascript.
<div id="d1">Text</div>
<div id="d2">Word</div>
<a onclick="hide()">My other text</a>
This is your HTML file for now, I created a DOM event, when you click the , a function called hide() will run in our js file. TIP: Don't forget to link the html with de javascript file. You can do that with:
<script src="yourfilegoeshere"><script>
Now let's head in the css:
#d1 {
opacity: 1;
}
#d2 {
opacity: 1;
}
Based with this css both of them are visible. Now let's go to our Js file:
function hide() {
var d2 = document.getElementById('d2')
d2.style.opacity = '0'
}
Now if you click in your a the d2 will not be visible
I hope I helped!
I'm building a web site and I'm using HTML5. I'd insert into my header an img that is my company's logo. In terms of efficient and correctness it is better set up css propriety as background-image: url("logo.gif") in my css style or including in the html file
<header>
<img src="logo.gif" alt="logo" />
</header>
It is best to include the image as an img tag, not a background-image.
This means that if the client has disabled CSS on their browser, or it doesn't support CSS, they will still be able to see the logo at the top of the page.
This would also mean you could make the logo a link to the home page, which has become a general usability point for websites these days:
<header>
<img src="logo.gif" alt="logo" />
</header>
For more information on this sort of situation, see this popular StackOverflow post:
When to use IMG vs. CSS background-image?
that depends.
If your logo should be clickable then include it in the HMTL. (usebility)
If it is only present for design purposes go with the CSS.
It is generally a better idea to define everything related to the appearance of the Website in the CSS.
html:
<header>
<div id="company_logo"></div>
</header>
css:
#company_logo{
width:50px;
height:50px;
background-image:url();
}
Unless you need to have some contents over your logo, I'd go for the <img> tag (it is also screen reader-friendly provided you have the "alt" text).
Background images can not be printed, if your site has the purpose of being printed, then your logo won't display.
Remember that a logo is a content, and a background is a style. Using a background as a logo is not semantic.
I read about semantic HTML online...
Semantic HTML means using HTML tags for their implied meaning, rather than just using (meaningless) div and span tags for absolutely everything.
If you use <h1> instead of <div class="header">, and <h2> instead of , et cetera, Google and other search engines will interpret your headers as being important titles in your page. This way, when people search on the words in your headers and sub-headers, your page will be considered more relevant (and rank higher). Plus, it's much shorter and cleaner.
So, below is semantic,
<h1>My Website Name</h1>
<h2>My Website Tagline </h2>
What about this below?
<div id="header">
<h1><span class="hide">My Website Name</span></h1>
<h2><span class="hide">My Website Tagline</span></h2>
</div>
I tend to combine h tags with div and span tags like above - is this practised considered as the lack of semantic?
The reason why I have the span with the hide class is that I want to display the site logo instead of text. So use CSS to set the background of h1 as image and then hide the text. is this incorrect practise?
Then, if I don't use div, what can I use to make a box around the h1 and h2?
As far as I know, html 5 is not fully ready yet, we must not use <header> yet, must we??
Thanks.
I would do something like the following if I was going to use HTML5:
<header>
<hgroup>
<h1>My Website Name</h1>
<h2>My Website Tagline</h2>
</hgroup>
</header>
Remember to add display: block; to the HTML5 elements and createElement for IE in the CSS though. The header element shows the block is a header and the hgroup element is there to show that the second h* element is a sub heading, so shouldn't be taken into account when calculating the header levels in the document.
If you don't want to use HTML5 yet then you could use divs instead of the new elements, and use the HTML5 element names as the class value. This will make it easier to switch over when you feel comfortable using HMTL5 on a live site.
You don't really need to use the span elements. You can use tricks such as using a large negative text-indent in the CSS to hide the text off the screen.
If you want to display a logo instead of text, use an image. Google say so (even if they don't know the difference between a tag and an attribute). Taglines, BTW, are not subheadings (and the site name (and thus logo) is usually only a heading on the homepage).
<div id="header">
<h1><img src="foo.png" alt="My Website Name"></h1>
<p><img src="foo.png" alt="My Website Tagline"></p>
</div>
Unfortunately, Internet Explorer 8 does not recognize many HTML5 tags, and when I've tested it, I was unable to set CSS values for the <header> tag, for example. So for now I would recommend that you continue to use div tags to group your semantic meaning.
As a sidenote, Google does not like hidden text, and if you have a lot of it, it will consider it deceptive coding. One is probably fine, but you'd be better off using the alt attribute on the image tag.
Nobody suggested that you should not use DIVs at all... semantic HTML does not mean there cannot be div or span tags in your code. It just only means that whenever possible (there is a specific tag available for a specific semantic meaning) you should try to give semantic meaning.
h2 is not to be used for taglines, as somebody else already suggested.
Also, in my interpretation (some will argue), h1 is not for the name of your website. It is the title for the content on a specific page.
I agree with #David Dorward, the tag line should be in a p tag.
Your example (wrapping the header elements with a div) is perfectly acceptable, though I would like to raise a small caution: Be careful that you do not get in the habit of wrapping everything in div tags. For example:
<div class="content">
<div class="list">
<ul>
<li>something</li>
<li>something</li>
<li>something</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
Since a ul tag is already a block element, the above markup would be better off like this:
<div class="content">
<ul class="list">
<li>something</li>
<li>something</li>
<li>something</li>
</ul>
</div>
And then just style the ul to look like the div.
On the matter of displaying the logo as an image:
If your logo is text-based, or has text in it, you would be better off doing the following:
HTML
<div id="header">
<h1 class="logo">My Logo Text - My Website Tagline</h1>
</div>
CSS
.logo { text-indent:-9999px;background-image:url(thelogo.jpg) no-repeat;}
/* Also add height and width based on your logo height and width */
I'm using KML and the GGeoXml object to overlay some shapes on an embedded Google map. The placemarks in the KML file have some custom descriptive information that shows up in the balloons.
<Placemark>
<name />
<description>
<![CDATA[
<div class="MapPopup">
<h6>Concession</h6>
<h4>~Name~</h4>
<p>Description goes here</p>
<a class="Button GoRight FloatRight" href="#"><span></span>View details</a>
</div>
]]>
</description>
<styleUrl>#masterPolyStyle</styleUrl>
...Placemarks go here ...
</Placemark>
So far so good - the popups show up and have the correct text in them. Here's the weird thing: I'm trying to use CSS to format what goes in the popups, and it halfway works.
Specifically:
The <h6> and <h4> elements are rendered using the colors and background images I've specified in my stylesheet.
Everything shows up in Arial, not in the font I've specified in my CSS.
The class names seem to be ignored (e.g. none of the a.Button formatting is applied; if I define a style like the one below, it's ignored.)
div.MapPopup { background:pink; }
Any ideas? I wouldn't have been surprised for the CSS not to work at all, but it's weird that it only partly works.
Update
Here's a screenshot to better illustrate this. I've reproduced the <div class="MapPopup"> markup further down on the page (in yellow), to show how it should be rendered according to my CSS.
As suggested I've gone in with Firebug to see what's going on. It looks like Google is doing two obnoxious things:
It's stripping out all class attributes from my HTML.
It's throwing all kinds of hard-coded styles around.
Here's my HTML along with the first couple of wrappers inserted by Google:
<div style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<div id="iw_kml">
<div>
<h6>Concession</h6>
<h4>BOIS KASSA 1108000 (Mobola-Mbondo)</h4>
<p>
Description goes here</p>
<a target="_blank"><span />View details </a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
As you can see, my classes (e.g. MapPopup in my first div, Button etc. in the <a> tag) have all been stripped out.
Knowing this I'll be able to work around Google's interference, using !important and targeting the container div for the whole map - still, this is annoying, and unexpectedly clumsy coming from Google.
More related obnoxiousness related to the HTML in a KML <description> block: Any links are given the attribute target="_blank", whether you like it or not. I'm currently exploring ways to undo that, using jQuery, but what a drag. I really don't understand why Google feels the need to tamper with this HTML.
See also this thread on the official Google Group.
I've had similar issues. I don't know how you are implementing your Marker, or if you are using InfoWindow, or .addListener, but they way I have had to get css styling to work inside of the "pop up bubble" (over the Marker) is to use what is called "inline styling." So I have a variable that I pass into InfoWindow. Assuming you have initialized a variable "marker" with some options, and have the "map" instance created, some example code would look like this:
/*start of myHtml2 variable*/
var myHtml2 = "<div style=\"background-color:lightgray\"><div style=\"padding:5px\"><div
style=\"font-size:1.25em\">Some text</div><div>Some more text<br/>
Yet more text<br/></div><table style=\"padding:5px\"><tr><td><img src=\"A lake.jpg\"
width=\"75px\" height=\"50px\"></td><td>More text<br/>Again, more text<br/><div
style=\"font-size:.7em\">Last text</div></td></tr></table></div></div>"
/*end of variable*/
var infowindow2 = new google.maps.InfoWindow({content: myHtml2});
/*mouseover could be 'click', etc.*/
google.maps.event.addListener(marker, 'mouseover', function(){
infowindow2.open(map, marker);
});
I know the css styling code is cumbersome, but I haven't found a way to use complicated css styling inside "the bubble pop up" using css in the head, or from a style sheet There are always conflicts, and some features don't render properly.
My first guess is that you're running into an issue with CSS specificity. There is a good article on it at http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/07/27/css-specificity-things-you-should-know/, so if you can include a container element ID, that may help.
Let me know if this doesn't turn out to be the problem and I'll come up with more ideas.