I have an image that is floated right full screen and comes below the main content. However, on mobile I want the image to be above the content and not below. Take into consideration that in my HTML the image is listed below the main content. Any suggestions would be amazing.
Html Code
<div class="wrapper">
<div class="main">
Main stuff
</div>
<img src="image.jpg>
<div>
You can use "display:flex" for the parent div which wraps your image and your text. And the property "order" for your child elements. If you want to switch the position of the element, you can change order depending on media queries.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/CSS_Flexible_Box_Layout/Ordering_Flex_Items
Related
I got the following constellation of <div>-elements:
<div class="root">
<div class="mainContainer">
<div class="menuBarContainer"></div>
<div class="appBoxContainer"></div>
</div>
<div class="sidebarContainer"></div>
</div>
Now, I want them to arrange on my page as depicted in the follwing picture:
Which would be the best way to arrange the <div> in CSS?
My problem is that the boxes try to fit in one line, even if I set the width-attribute to 100%.
I want the site to be fully responsive and the sidebarContainer-element is linked to a button which toggles its visibility.
What can I do to make the mainContainer-element take the full width of the page (root) when the sidebar is invisible (width: 0)?
Thanks in advance!
Look into flexboxes, they're practically made for this desktop-application like layout.
Row direction for for .root, column direction for .mainContainer
For responsive design you can use media queries to hide the .sidebarContainer below a certain screen size, even depending on device orientation.
Or simply change the root flexbox to column direction to display it below the main content.
If you set (blue) boxes to display:block they should clear automatically both sides and get positioned like your sketch;
Then , assuming your sidebar has a variable width you could set
.mainContainer {width: auto; display:inline-block}
I have following code:
<div>
<div id="dynamic" style="float:left;height:50px;background-color:#aaa;">
floated block which will be dynamically increase
</div>
<div id="static" style="height:50px;background-color:#FC3;">
Hello guys
</div>
</div>
I want to move static div as dynamic div width changes. Above code works as I want but I don't know whether the above way is the right to do that?
Is floated div inside inline text the right way? Is that cross-browser?
Will this code affect anything else, like the content below it or moving below static div?
And why does floated div not move below inline content, rather aligns it with inline text?
You can use float:left for the <div id="static"> too. I don't see any issues until your dynamic div width + static div width reach the window width.
This >> http://jsfiddle.net/gxpBL/ is what I'm telling.
I am trying to build up a website with a Navigation bar on top of the page. It should be fixed on top of the browser when we scroll the page (like facebook or twitter), but not scroll with the page(like google search??). see Fig like:
seems like we should set the css attribute position of this navigation bar like
#nav_bar {
postion:fixed;
}
but why all those websites use a whole bunch of div to do this? Does all these divs make any sence? Like twitter:
where topbar js-topbar is the outmost div which size is 1583*40px, but I didnt find the definition of its size. And then it goes to global-nav->global-nav-inner->container, finally...container, which is acutually hold the navgation items like a list, a search bar so on and so forth. something Weired is that the size of it is 865*0px. For more information, you can view source of the home page of twitter.
And my question is : but why all those websites use a whole bunch of div to do this? Does all these divs make any sence? Why is a div which height is 0px can hold those navigation items?
why the 'many' divs?
The general idea is the more wrapping elements you have the more flexibility you have with regards to what you can achieve in styling with css. Obviously there is a limit, as you should also try to keep your markup readable and semantic. I would say many important or segregated regions in a site would benefit from three wrapping elements:
<div class="positioner">
<div class="padder">
<div class="alignment">
Menu Here
</div>
</div>
</div>
Obviously with the more semantic HTML5 elements you can make this more readable:
<header class="positioner">
<div class="padding>
<nav class="alignment">
Menu Here
</nav>
</div>
</header>
The reason for keeping a seperate element for padding is so that you can set specific dimensions to your positioner (i.e. header) and not have that calculation messed up on certain browsers (with old box modles) by the addition of padding.
The reason for keeping alignment seperate is because it will give you greater flexibility on the alignment tricks you can use.
The reason for using the header element is because this content will act as a header imo.
The example you give above, each element will most definitely have it's reason for existing and they will most probably all be used to achieve the layout the designer wanted with regard to css. Some times extra wrapping divs are also used as placeholders for content that may be AJAXed, this is probably quite likely when dealing with the likes of Twitter.
You can of course get away with using only a single wrapping element, but you will be limiting what styling and positioning you can achieve later on down the line.
why the height 0px?
There is a trick often used with positioning absolute layers in a relative location (rather than an absolute location) - and I believe this is the reason why you are seeing this, but the trick in itself isn't the actual cause of the height:0px. The trick uses the following construction:
<div style="position: relative;">
<div style="position: absolute;">
The content here will float outside of the document flow,
but remain in the correct location within the document flow
- in all viable browsers.
</div>
</div>
If you inspect the above construction, using any browser debug method, you will notice that the position: absolute; layer has collapsed to have no height (in modern browsers). This is the default behaviour of position absolute outside of the old Internet Explorer world (with no other positioning or dimensions settings), because an absolutely position element is taken out of the document flow and by default doesn't calculate anything to do with it's children.
If you wish to override this behaviour you can simply use overflow:hidden; (as long as the height has NOT been specifically set to 0px by some other class or by JavaScript) - this will force the element to calculate the dimensions of it's children and wrap them.
First of all use position:absolute; if you don't want it move with you when scrolling. position:fixed; if you do.
Second of all when you build a website the first thing you're going to have to do is decide how the structure of your website is going to look like. So the menu at the top will be
<div id="Menu"> </div>
Now you may want to create a header under it
<div id="Header"> </div>
Under that you want to share content, since thats what website do.
<div id="Content"> </div>
Under that you may want a footer, that says 2012 Copyright etc.
<div id="Footer">2012 Copyright zoujyjs © </div>
Now you may want to center everything. Why not just put all these previous divs inside a wrapper div. Then all we have to do is center the wrapper div.
<div id="Wrapper">
<div id="Menu"> </div>
<div id="Header"> </div>
<div id="Content"> </div>
<div id="Footer"> </div>
</div>
You could also add stuff like a logo inside the header, etc.
I think you get the idea. But isn't it obvious you're going to get "divception" then?
Also: When no height is specified on a div, the div will automatically resize with the content within.
<div style="background-color:black;">
<!-- Nothing will be seen on your page, because the div is 0 height, 0 width by default -->
</div>
<div style="background-color:black;">
Height of the div will now be the same height as the height of this line. (15 px by default I believe
</div>
The default layout page I get in a MVC razor has a problem with the section tag being smaller than its contents. The issue is I have a large table inside of it, and it is running out of the section, rather than the section simply becoming wide enough to fit it. I have recreated the issue in jsFiddle. You can see that the blue box is much thinner than the red box. The blue section being the initial size of the window, but if you scroll right, then you see the table is wider than the section.
How do I get the section to widen to match the size of its contents?
<div class="page">
<section id="main" style="background:blue;height:50px">
<table style="width:1000px; overflow:auto;background:red">
<tr><td>lkjlkjlkjlkjjhgjhgjhgjgjhgjhg</td></tr>
</table>
</section>
<footer>
</footer>
</div>
http://jsfiddle.net/sDG8n/1/
Float the section to the left
<section id="main" style="float:left;background:blue;height:50px">
Try putting the overflow:auto on the section instead of on the table.
The Spec says you're doing it wrong:
The section element represents a generic document or application
section…The section element is not a generic container element. When
an element is needed for styling purposes or as a convenience for
scripting, authors are encouraged to use the div element instead
In other words: Use a DIV.
I've got this layout that i want to cut into html/css, but i'm struggling with picking best way to strcture html/css for major content (like diffrent bg block in the middle that is under 960 content block, and covers whole wideness etc.). I've attached a structure of the layout:
So my main quesions are:
How to handle custom bg block that is ,,outside'' of grid, or should
it be inside, and then make content block be inside contenbg, and
outside the container, that logo and menu is?
How to handle custom png shadows (i wanna avoid css3 in this case) that should be outside the content
slider (as on image)
Same question applies to footer, should it be outside the main 960
container? Should i use ,,main container'' at all in this case? I'm
not sure whats the best practise here.
Thanks
I'm unable to see the attached file but I'll try to give you some guidelines:
You should have a main content which is centred on the screen and is 960px wide.
If the header/footer are the same width (i.e. their Background doesn't span more than 960px), they should be in the container div. On the other hand, if their BG is wider than 960 put each in a separate div which spans as wide as you need and inside this div put another div which is 960 wide and centered.
example:
<div id="headerWrapper">
<div id="header">...</div>
</div>
<div id="content">...</div>
<div id="footerWrapper">
<div id="footer">...</div>
</div>
if you want png shadows without using CSS3 your only option is slicing the image with the shadow.
I hope that answers your questions.