I have been trawling the web trying to find an answer to my css nightmare question.
The main problem seems to be getting a min-height:580px and a height:100% at the same time in all the browsers.
The thing I need to achieve is:
Site to have a min height of 580px including footer so total height before scroll bars appear is 580px.
Also, a min width is needed of 930px including right and left margin of 15px each side.
left menu of 216px wide and 100% high minus the footer height of 30px.
Main part of the screen should fill all the space available. Unless the screen height is less than 580px or width less than 930px. In this case you get scroll bars.
Compatiblity ie6,7,8, Firefox and Safari.
Can it be done with no Javascript?
There may be cleaner ways, but an idea that comes to mind about the min-height (min-height isn't interpreted by IE<8 anyway):
Place an absolutely positioned, 1 pixel wide, invisible DIV in the left hand corner of the screen. Give it 580 Pixels height.
That should make the height at least 580 Pixels.
The same should be possible with the horizontal width.
You should then be able to work the menu part in the usual way.
Don't forget your HTML element needs height: 100% for height: 100% to work within the body.
First, there's no support for min-height in IE6 or IE7 without javascript, period. So the answer to your question is no.
In general, though (and I'll admit I'm not sure since I haven't tested it thoroughly) but I seem to recall that height:100% overrides the min-height property set in pixels in browsers that do support it.
You could try using a second div either inside or outside your 100% height div that's the 580px you need...
Related
If I resize browser window (Newest Chrome in my case) so it gets horizontal scrollbar then the header div gets "cut off". In that case scrolling to right reveals some empty space. This is because the main content other then header have fixed width.
But the header div has 100% width and div is a block element by default also so it should stretch by itself to the 100% of the page width. Why it is not doing so? Shouldn't it be the default behavior? And why StackOverflow team didn't fix it?
The problem I found on many pages, including StackOverflow:
So I've been googling, even found a solution for a problem but not satisfactory enough. The solution is to set the min-width property to the width of that 's content. But isn't there a better solution?
I'm searching for a better solution, if any? Also I'm searching for an reasonable explanation why div's default behavior to stretch 100% of the width doesn't apply here?
You see a white space because, somewhere on the page, most likely under the header element, there is an element which is bigger than 100% – that's why you see the horizontal scrollbar.
The header infact is 100%, which means it's shorter than the full width of the document - therefore the white space.
To debug, I usually open the inspector and start from the bottom to the top and delete the sibling of the header, one by one, till I get to the point where everything is no more white space. At that point you know the problem is with the last element you just deleted. Try to look for errors in that particular element.
The "cut-off" div has a width of 100% of the visible area, so everything is ok.
The Problem is, that the content is overflowing and you are now able to scroll to the 120% width.
To fix this behavior und stretch your "cut-off" div always over the full width of the page, you can apply some css:
position: absolute;
left: 0;
right: 0;
Inspect the body element and you'll see that it only extends as far as the viewport. The topbar-wrapper is 980px fixed width, and its parent with the black background, topbar, is 100% (of body). topbar also needs a width of 980px, or the body element needs min-width: 980px...here on the StackOverflow site (looks like you found a bug)
This is a problem I often found on builds I was reviewing from freelancers, where they forget to shrink their browser down. The full-width sections usually need min-widths, if the site isn't fluid and there are fixed-width elements.
How does the line-height property in CSS works? If i set the line-height equal or less than the font size, it creates the problem with layout width. Please check this jsFiddle to see the problem.
I'm using font-size 14px, and line height 14px. If you change the line-height to 15px or more, the problem will be solved. Shouldn't the line-height only change the height, not disturb the width?
Please see the image below, as you see the #wrap has width of 300px, now because of line height the two div's of width 150px are not fitting into it.
I have checked with firefox and chrome, latest versions.
Line height is an inherited property but its inheritance works in a complicated way as compared to other inherited properties.
There is an excellent slideshow to Illustrate how line-height works depending on the units you specify the line height.
http://www.slideshare.net/maxdesign/line-height.
Slide 28 onwards explains your issue.
It has nothing to do with line height... not directly atleast. The two boxes will remain 150px wide regardless of whether you specify a line height or not. The overflow: auto causes a vertical scroll bar to appear (for reasons unknown to me) which reduces the available width of your container from 300px to ~280px hence the two colored boxes cannot appear side by side anymore. If you remove overflow: auto the result will appear as expected.
Edit
Revised demo here. To counter the vertical scrollbar, I added 1px padding on the container which seemed to counter the problem. For larger font sizes, use a padding of 2px.
In Chrome, if I increase the line height to 18px, the divs will be side by side, but the width doesn't change. Apparently this has something to do with the calculation of the height of #wrap. The browser cannot decide wether to show the scrollbar in #wrap or not. But since #wrap is exactly 300 wide, and thus can hold the two divs side by side only when the scrollbar isn't displayed, you'll have to force to hide it. Change #wrap overflow to hidden, or remove this property altogether.
Here is my site: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/331982/Sandbox/comsat.html
To get the items to appear that are messing up the 100% width: click two hexagons and have your browser maximized.
#playerTwo, the right hand section, has a large chunk appearing off the right side of the browser i.e. scrollbars appear.
I know there are some issues with percentage widths in browsers, and one of the solutions I found was setting the margin and padding to 0px, but it didn't help.
*The reason why I'm using percentages, is because I plan on eventually making the page responsive. =\
This is because you have width:500px on #playerone, #playertwo, and width: 40% on .nameslider, and you don't have position:relative on #playerTwo, so it's width is calculated from the documents' width.
So to fix it you can try to add position:relative;overflow:hidden; to #playerone, #playertwo and set the width for .nameslider to 100%.
Or maybe just experiment a little more — there are a lot of things to improve in your markup :)
I'm working on a website for a client, and I'm not excellent at css... still in the process of learning a lot about divs. I made a div that is supposed to stretch 100% of the page, and it works, unless a user is browsing from a lower resolution (1024 x 768 for example) and has to scroll horizontally, the div will then only extend to the original length of the browser window.
That coupled with the fact that my footer is behaving the same way, and is not sticking to the bottom of the page.
The code/website can be found at:
http://cliqthis.com/temp/roadhouse/index.php
Thank you for any assistance, or an explanation of why this is happening would be helpful as I am still in the process of learning.
You see the scrollbar for resolution 1024x768 because <div id='container'> has a width of 1064 pixels set on it. The parent div will have a minimum width of 1064 due to this.
Are we talking about the black bars not extending all the way to the right?
You need to make sure not only that those divs' widths are 100%, but that all their ancestors' widths are also 100%. With normal (static) positioning, the 100% width means 100% of the element's parent's width.
Using the Web Developer addon in Firefox, with Outline Current Element turned on should prove very helpful in determining which elements aren't as wide as they need to be. (Move your mouse around the page and it will outline the element you're over, and tell you the css selector path to it).
Also you might want to compare the structure to the original template you used. It seems odd to me that, for example, you have an empty div.#footer element, and then a table.foot element after it, rather than inside of it. Perhaps you accidentally broke something there?
Set up a minimum width for the div.
div.class { /* ... */ min-width: ___px !important; /* ... */ }
I have an absolutely positioned div that has a width of 100% with a background image tiling horizontally. When the browser is shrunk to the point that the width of the browser is less than the page, the remaining right portion of the div's background color is truncated.
Is there a better approach or a hack to resolve this?
Here's the example: link with the div in question being the menu.
Edit: to clarify, reduce the size of your browser so that the full width of the page (960px) requires a scroll-bar. At this point, 100% of the "page", or the viewable area, is actually less than 100% of the content. When this occurs, the menu's background doesn't span the remaining content that would require scrolling to the right to see.
This issue is present in ie7, ie8, and firefox 3.5. I haven't tested the other browsers but I can only assume that this happens there as well.
Thanks
Add:
min-width: 960px;
to the menu div selector. Fixes it for me.
With regards to the actual code structure, and as someone pointed out (but promptly deleted their post), perhaps structure your elements in a more logical layout. There's no reason to have the menu as the bottom child element (as far as I could tell anyway)
It's a more linear, free flowing code structure, rather then a spaghetti mess of containers in random orders, that it can turn into.