i have a table that looks like this:
<table id="navbar" border="1" style="background-color:navy;height:150px;position:sticky;top:0px;right:0px;left:0px;border-style: solid;border-color:black;max-width:999999px; width:100%; background-image: none;">
the style for all tables:
table{
text-align:center;
width:30%;
left:25%;
/*font-size:larger;*/
}
the psoition sticky should make it so that the table will always remain at the top of the screen, even on horizontall scroll. yet it doesn't work. the only way i found for it to work was by adding another table above and giving both the display:inline-table attribute, but it is not the solution i am looking for.
anyone knows the reason for why it doesn't work?
edit-i need to use position:sticky. it works pefectly for vertical scroll, but not for horizontal scroll. that is the problem i need to fix
Sorry it took so long for someone to answer you #Erel.
So you don't have to read my ramblings if you just want code, I'll start with the demo: https://codepen.io/NerdyDeeds/pen/oNYVLpB
There's a couple things to note here, for the behavior you're after:
Much like the whole height:100% thing, for this to work, the measurements need to go all the way down to the :root. That is to say, every DOM node hierarchy needs to know the actual limits of its bounding box (don't worry: it'll become more clear below).
When an object is positioned sticky, it basically has TWO sets of coordinate limitations: those of the viewport, AND those of its parent. If the parent is 500px wide and you scroll 1500px off screen to the right, the sticky element will stop at the edge of its parent, not continue to tag along. Which brings us nicely to the most important aspect:
The <body> tag is simply another block-level container object, only it gets an implicit min-width:100vw; min-height:100vh. That said, if the one of IT'S children that's necessitating the horizontal scroll is, say, 250vw wide, it will expand to contain that element, but it's measurement width remains the same; it's children still think papa's only 100vw wide. Likewise, were you to explicitly tell it that it's "ACTUAL" width is really only 100vw, it too, will slide off-screen when scrolling, carrying its sticky child (aren't they all?) with it.
The same thing applies to all the ancestral containers of your sticky element. They DON'T automatically get the min-width, so you need to explain to them they're to take up that full space. If you want that done dynamically, you need to explain that to the <body>, so they can inherit the "real" 100% of the page. If any ancester is throttled in its movement or its dimensions, that will cascade all the way down-chain to your element, sticky or not.
The simplest way to tackle this I've found is to simply add:
body {
width: max-content;
}
...to you CSS. This tells the body "you're actually as wide as your widest contents... pass it on!" The "cascading" portion of the CSS will take hold and carry they measurement all the way up to your sticky element, provided none of the parent nodes between it and the body themselves are constrained (like if you set a width:100vw in there somewhere. 100% will work fine, but again: only if none of IT'S ancestors is smaller).
Check out the attached CodePen. I tried to make it as self-explanatory as I could.
And again: sorry nobody got back to you sooner. That's a frustrating feeling that stinks. I hope you already found your solution, but if not, this may help who comes googling after. Hope this helped.
Use fixed position:
<table id="navbar" border="1" style="background-color:navy;height:150px;position:fixed;top:0px;right:0px;left:0px;border-style: solid;border-color:black;max-width:999999px; width:100%; background-image: none;">
position: fixed always fixates an element to some position within its scrolling container or the viewport. No matter how you scroll its container, it will remain in the exact same position and not affect the flow of other elements within the container.
position: sticky basically acts like position: relative until an element is scrolled beyond a specific offset, in which case it turns into position: fixed, causing the element to "stick" to its position instead of being scrolled out of view.
Related
I'm trying to use a sticky footer, but it seems to having a conflict with my css, I'm following this tutorial, but I want to know why the footer is in the middle of the page, what do I have to do to fix it.
My code:
jsfiddle.net/q2Vuq/
The reason why you're seeing this strange behaviour with the sticky footer is because of your usage of position:absolute; on a number of your elements. Namely, the ones wrapped within the #navigation div.
Take a look at this (this JSFiddle just illustrates the problem more clearly):
I've given the offending elements all a background colour (as well as the body), so you can see that these elements are actually causing the scroll bar to extend beyond the height of the body. Absolute positioning actually takes them outside of the layout - meaning they don't cause their parent #navigation to expand, which in turn does not cause its parent .page-wrap to expand, which ultimately results in the footer not getting moved down. The footer gets put to the bottom of the body (as a result of the sticky footer CSS), which isn't quite low enough since the absolute-positioned elements extend even further below (as they are ignored by the body).
So, with that in mind, how do you fix this behaviour? Unfortunately, your sticky footer relies largely on the assumption that all content will be figured into the layout above it, or at least that the wrapper element above it will be tall enough to account for all its contents. This makes your use of absolute positioning hard to keep.
The best solution is probably to remove your current usage of absolute-positioned elements in your document, and rework how you're going to place your elements. Since I don't know what design you're actually aiming for, I can't provide an example of this. An alternative is to place an internal wrapper element inside of .page-wrap, with a min-height set such that it goes below even the lowest absolute-positioned element. However, this second method isn't too flexible, and I wouldn't recommend it.
If this isn't what you were looking for, or need more assistance in this particular matter, let me know and I'll be happy to help further. Good luck!
I have a dojox chart (chartDiv) that gets created within another container div (panelContainer).
Even though I have the width and height of the chartDiv set to be 90%, it either introduces scroll bars into the chartDiv, or if I dtart altering the padding and margin settigns for the ChartDiv, it will spill outside of the parent container.
I know this is going to be a basic issue, but I have been playing with lots of different CSS settings but nothing seems to solve keeping the chartDiv within the confines of the panelContainer (taking up 95% of the space)
This fiddle might help you spot where I have gone wrong.
When you make a chart (or a dojox.gfx canvas) without width/height, it will try its best to determine its dimensions from the container you put it in. It can get confused though!
In your fiddle's case, #chart has a known width, because it's a block element and inherits its width from panelBG which is 100% of panelContainer's width.
The #chart div doesn't really have a height though, since a block element is 0px tall until you put something in it (or add some style to it). As a consequence, (I think) the chart simply assumes a height of some proportion to the width.
In your CSS, I see you have a #chartDiv rule with width and height 90%. I'm guessing you intended that to be #chart. That wouldn't actually have resolved the problem entirely though!
Assuming you changed that, the chart would now use 90%x90% as width/height, but if you try it, you'll see that the labels/axis are still positioned incorrectly.
Because you've floated the title container to the left, the chart container starts on the same "line" and tries to have its content "float" around the title container. This skews the axis labels out of place (green), while the actual chart (svg/canvas, pink) drops down below the title container.
To fix this, tell the chart container to stay clear of floats on both sides:
#chart {
width: 90%;
height: 90%;
clear: both;
}
It isn't really necessary to float anything though, and setting the height to 90% isn't always ideal. I made a suggestion in an updated fiddle: http://fiddle.jshell.net/froden/WsrHs/4/ .
The differences are just that the title container is a div spanning across the top, while the chart container is absolutely positioned so that it fills whatever space is left underneath. You can then just set width/height on panelContainer.
Absolutely positioned elements are taken out of the normal flow. This is why some of the elements are expanding beyond their containers. I have a feeling your floats are involved in that, too, but the fiddle is a little too complicated and a simpler version needs to be made.
Is there a way to make an element not contribute to parent overflow, but keep it visible? Let me clarify
There is a watermark-like logo to be applied to a page in the manner below. It is supposed to be positioned partly outside the main content (dashed blue line)
I'm not aware of the option to set an element background in such a manner that it would persist as the browser window is resized horizontally, so I've just added a <div> with the logo as its background and position:absolute with the necessary offset relative to main content container.
Previously, the page would not get a horizontal scrollbar as long as the browser was wider than W1. Now, with an additional "watermark" element added outside of the main content box, the scrollbar would appear whenever the browser is narrower than W2
Is there something obvious I'm missing? A background setting, or possibly a neat margin workaround/
Update:
I've added a rough jsfiddle to illustrate the issue
Unfortunately, just because you nested the "watermark" div and positioned it absolutely doesn't make it outside of the document. If you put it outside of the document, the page will scroll (as you see).
To me, the first solution I think of is to move the watermark outside of the "content" div and apply the watermark to its parent container. I'm guessing you haven't done that because you need it to be relative to the "content" div, but it's something to try.
Also, the reason it scrolls is because the document has been overflow. The quick fix, yet not recommended, is to use "overflow-x: hidden;" on the parent container of the "content" div.
It's harder to give you a solution since you've stripped the rest of your HTML, and some "fixes" may not be as applicable if your structure is complicated in certain ways.
Remember that the width of your elements is greater than the actual "width" it includes padding & margins, if you have padding on your div reduce the "width" by the equivalent amount.
does that make sense? if you post the actual css & html it might be easier to give you a more detailed answer
additionally could you not assign the image as the background of the actual body element and set it to centered?
I've had a play with the code and come up with a possible solution for you.
set
body{overflow-x:hidden;}
then add
#media all and (max-width: 400px)
{
body{overflow-x:auto; }
}
as soon as your screen is smaller than 400px (the width of the div) your overflow:hidden will be overridden and you'll be given you scroll bars.
at this point you may also want to reduce the width of your watermark.
What's the recommended & most elegant way of getting rid of the gap caused by position:relative?
I have a front page and want to put a banner that will be partially above the header and content section, but using position:relative produces an empty area...
See example (I want the text to be just below the red box):
http://jsfiddle.net/Ru2CT/
I know I could create another relative positioned div as a parent of my text, but then I'll still have the gap but between content section & footer...
Any ideas? :)
Take the entire contents of the grey box, and place it within a div (stretched to be the same size). Then move that box up with position:relative. This will have the effect of moving the text with the red "slider"/banner thing, without moving the gray background.
Here we go:
http://jsfiddle.net/4BLFJ/ [animated and annotated]
This is not what you asked, but is one of the two ways I would do it:
The main idea here is to make the banner an absolutely-positioned div (not absolutely-positioned on the page, though you can do that too; it may in fact be better).
First set the #content area to be position:relative, but NOT change anything else. This creates a new stacking context (child elements use top/right/bottom/left and percentages relative to it).
Then put the banner-thing as a child element of the #content area, and set it as follows:
position:absolute;
width:80%; height:100px; /*there are other ways to set the height and width*/
bottom:100%; /*this puts it at the top*/
/*you can also use bottom:105% or bottom:90% or other things, or if you really
want to use non-relative units like px, you can create a third nested div that is
relatively positioned by whatever px amount*/
Negative margin would be a much more elegant solution in this situation (revised jsFiddle). Note that I've had to move the #eee background to div#main, as it would otherwise overlay on the background of div#top.
As a general rule of thumb, I'd also recommend avoiding relative positioning unless absolutely necessary - can often lead to z-index headaches in older versions of IE.
I've finally resolved this issue, simple:
position: relative;
bottom: 200px;
margin-bottom: -200px;
Does the magic! :)
When I resize window and when vertical scrollbar appears, if I scroll it way to the bottom, - the bottom breaks. I dont understand why, but I think it has something to do with the way how page uses 100% height. Any help would be appreciated!
Here's the page: zxsdesign.com/main1.html
Here's a screenshot
zxsdesign.com/bug1.PNG http://zxsdesign.com/bug1.PNG
It's a mix of you using the CSS height property and absolute positioning. ajm has talked about using min-height - ideally, you should be using it instead of height when you make things 100% high.
Onto your other problem. When you position elements absolutely, they're no longer part of the page structure. Instead, they live in a separate plane, and so do not affect the page dimensions. When your <div id="flashcontent"> runs past the window boundary, it doesn't affect <body>'s borders.
You can fix this by not using position: absolute. There's no real need to. Instead, you can position the #flashcontent element normally, and get rid of the #bg element completely - just give #flashcontent a background instead. Then use margin: 0 auto; and padding-top: 179px; to position it in the correct place.
Unfortunately height: 100%; is implemented differently... You can not be sure that a browser does what you want when you use it.
Try to use clear: left; or clear: both; in your style.
100% height is one screen height. If you scroll up, it does cover 100% of the height. Make your blocks scale too, or at least move to the center of the screen. You can do this by setting their top and bottom padding to auto.
Also, your head tag isn't closed properly. Check this
Your page is based entirely on using 100% height for all of your Elements. If the user's browser viewport is big enough, that's fine; however, if they resize their browser to be small enough, your page will be 100% of that smaller height and things will drop out of the bottom.
Look into setting a min-height on one of your container Elements. That will force things to stop resizing if the browser window falls below that height. Or, you can set a plain old height big enough to contain your flash piece on one of your container items and let the others inherit from that.
And, since IE6 doesn't support min-height (FF2+, IE7, Safari all do), you'll need to hack it in like so.