When using the Banno plugin framework, how much of the screen width does the Banno plugin framework use up?
For example, given an iphone with a viewport size of 375px. If the Banno framework has padding of 24px on each side, that would leave 327px left for the plugin to use.
How much padding does the plugin framework us on each side in a mobile view? How much width will the plugin actually get?
That's not explicitly specified as the answer can vary between operating systems (and versions) as well as based on the specific device.
You'll get the full width of the Card Face as defined in the User Interface doc. Plugin content should be responsive to adapt to varying widths. (The height is configured and known in advance.)
These resources may be helpful as well, when designing your plugin:
https://jackhenry.dev/open-api-docs/plugins/guides/designinganddevelopingplugins/
https://jackhenry.dev/open-api-docs/plugins/guides/launching-your-project/design-your-plugin/
Related
I am new to CSS Grid Layout.
Problems I am facing while trying to achieve following using css grids
Unable to achieve responsive design. (Responsiveness doesn't go well with different screen size ratios. Example 4:3 or 16:9)
It is well known most of things doesn't go well when testing the application in Internet Explorer (Here I am talking about IE11)
(Edit: Excluded, until IE supports CSS grid layout)
It is a web tool dashboard, scroll bar should not appear in any condition while using in a full screen view.
Restricted to use third party plug-in or poly-fills. (Because of commercial use)
Restricted to use negative values in css properties.
(Edit: I know it can be achieved using media queries plus other CSS layout properties. Here I am trying to achieve this with minimal and cleaner code). Thanks
When you use relative units it will resize according to your screen size. For different layouts you still need media queries
CSS-grid is not fully supported by IE11. That usually isn't a problem as you should use a mobile-first approach anyways and mobile websites usually don't look bad on desktop anyways
There is nothing special about the grid layout here. (If anything, it makes it easier: media queries + absolute units = magic) Either use media queries or overflow: hidden;
Restricted to use third party plug-in or poly-fills. Ähm no? I don't understand what you mean
Restricted to use negative values in css properties. Again, no, you're generally not? What's the problem here?
How the grid system works for those websites that expand to the full size of the browser (no matter how you resize) while working with the 12 grid_ system?
For example, take a look on these websites:
http://vevo.com
http://xfinitytv.comcast.net
http://pinterest.com
Is there a technical name for this? Why there's no many websites like this that take advantage of the full browse size?
Thanks
The "technical name" for what you're asking about is called "fluid" layout. In terms of how to achieve this in Bootstrap, the answer depends on whether you're using v.2.x or the newly released version 3. In version 2.x the fluid effect was obtained by wrapping grid elements in a with the "container-fluid" class. In release 3, the "container" class is fluid by default. (See Bootstrap: Migrating from 2.x to 3.0 for more.)
As for why more sites don't use fluid layout in all most, that's a rather subjective question. I'll comment from my personal experience (15 years in web design and development)> The fluid design doesn't really become a problem until you get to larger displays, where having the content stretched out across the entire width of the screen can pose usability problems. Specifically, block of text can become very difficult to read if the lines become too long. The longer the lines of text, the more difficult it is for the eye to find the start of the next line. Also, images stretched too wide loose their sharpness (assuming that technique is used). Simply put, people with large displays typically don't want or need the entire display taken up by content. Web applications are an exception to this, since online apps often have grids of data to display and many columns, data panels, menus, etc. that necessitate that the user maximize use of all available display area. Do a web search for "fluid vs. fixed width layout" and you'll get plenty of resources comparing the two approaches.
I need to put together website for mobile devices, so iPhones and various androids. The problem is I struggle with getting viewport right and other settings. My goal is so webpage would be coded for specific width e.g. 640px wide. Then once open device would zoom it in/out to the width of the screen so everything became larger or smaller same like after zoomig in/out via pinching on the device screen.
So I would like to develop it for lets say 640px width and depending on device it would scale up or down once open. So if device screen would be 960px wide it would automatically scale to this width via viewport somehow. Is this possible at all to have it coded for predefined width in css and have zoomed in/out as needed by device itself?
I apologize if the question is too generic, will explain details if needed.
EDIT:
So the most common approach if I understand correctly is to provide few layout versions for most commons screen sizes? Using media queries in css provide different values for widths, fonts sizes etc is that right?
If I decide however to go with percentages rather than media queries, given the design provided I think still would have a problem with resizing fonts as layout has images with text in it and text needs to be proportional to the image. Also percentages would take care of widths, height might be an issue though as the images would have to be resized vertically too. Some parts of the design would need to "fit" each other it seems and it would become problem I think.
Now if I simply build a website of certain width, lets say 640px I should be able to position everything on the screen with pixels, no diffeent from normal non-mobile website.
So I tried to set <meta name="viewport" content="width=640"> and inside of a page set width of widest container in css to 640px making page width 640px basically. If I understand correctly it will set up viewport to exact width of the page. So the page would be build as any other non-mobile webpage. User will have to adjust scale by pinching as when the page opens it is usually zoomed in/out for some reason. Is my understanding of what is happening here correct or is there some problem with it. Having it predefined size takes care of different mobile screen sizes as viewport is always same, fits into page width and only scale seems the problem, that is unless I'm missing something here.
I also should have mentioned that I need to do only portrait and make it only option, so no landscape view (that will be another question).
Would love to know your thoughts and I appreciate all the answers so far.
This is called Responsive Web Design when a website adjusts according to screen size...
You can make this kind of responsive website easily through CSS3 Media Queries:
How to write CSS Media Queries for common types of devices
Responsive Web Design: What It is and How to Use It
If you google for Responsive Web Design you will find lots more information on this topic. It's really an amazing method to make your website look great on all devices from small to large screens.
We have a series of tutorials on creating web pages using responsive web design. If you want a quick introduction to it checkout Introduction: Creating a Responsive Web Design, it lists common mobile phone and tablet sizes, so it might lead you to the answer you need. You can find the link to our tutorial series in the article. The solutions provided use Bootstrap in order to provide easy to create pages. And it also provides free samples of responsive web design pages.
I hope this helps to provide the answer that you need, if not, then please let us know if we can provide any further assistance.
Regards,
Arnel C.
InMotion Hosting Community Support Team
Specify the width in percentage say width=100%,which automatically adjusts the width with the screen.
I'm building a phonegap app in jquery mobile and need to set heights on some page elements. What is the best unit to use? I expect that it is not pixels, and possibly is percentages, but I'm having trouble finding an authoritative answer.
rem unit is the best for mobile. Check this http://snook.ca/archives/html_and_css/font-size-with-rem for more info
I have started learning some web development lately and have noticed lot's of sites just use Pixel dimension to specify sizes of thins as well as the overall size of the body.
This seems counter intuitive to me (maybe because I am used to programing for Android)
But this could make the website a pain to view on lower res screens and less useful on higher end screens.
Is this really the way things are done? Does this not cause to much problems?
Thanks.
EDIT: how would one go about implementing a less fixed size site?
There are pros and cons to doing things like this.
Pros: It allows you to have full control over where everything is placed as sometimes with relative sizing things will move in unexpected ways.
Cons: Well you mentioned them! Different size screens will give the site a different look.
But overall to some people it is more important that everything remains in the right place than that everything looks great on all screen sizes. Ultimately it depends on the preference of the designer. Also remember that uses on higher resolution screens can zoom in and those on lower resolutions can zoom out!
Peaces and pears.
Each to their own, so long as they are consistant and know what they are doing that is all that matters.
I have recently starting using grid templating which uses pixel dimensions for containers and I really enjoy it. Considering that 960.gs (960px) is an accepted size width for a website, if you know that you do not want to develop a fluid template, then why not use fixed width pixels.
If I am going to have a mobile version of my phone, then I serve the mobile version not my 960px website, and in any case, most phones intuitively display websites anyway. (At least the latest phones, obviously not the old Nokia 8210's ;).