I'm working on an image sharing website for one of my computer science classes, and I've been running into trouble when I try to actually display the images to the user. I've let users tag their images, and display images that match one or more tags. However, when I try to display images with different aspect ratios, it looks quite ugly. I want all of the images to have the same height, but allow their widths to change to keep the aspect ratio.
I can solve my problem easily enough if I put a fixed height for each row (e.g. .row { height: 30vh; }), but I've been running into issues when I try to have a dynamic height.
Potential soultions I've tried:
flex—flex makes the images overlay into each other, and since I don't know the size beforehand, I can't really use .img{ flex: NUMBER; }.
div— I wrapped the imgs in divs, and resized the img to fit. This is the most common answer I've found, except it doesn't work for the same reason as a plain img: I don't know the height beforehand, so I cant set the height of the div. I also tried this with span and that also didn't work.
table—I tried using a table, with a single tr tag, and every image written as <td><img src="..." ></td>, but this also doesn't work, and isn't exactly what I'm looking for; I don't want a table, as I just have a single column.
li—Each separate list element is on a new line, but I want as many to be on the same line as possible, and there's a bullet point. True, I could remove the bullet point and make the lines wrap, but it still doesn't solve the issue.
I could theoretically load all the images via JavaScript or PHP (depending on if I make it server- or client-side), find their width, and use that. However, that seems extremely hacky and I want a better solution.
Here is an example of what it's currently doing. And here is an example of what I want it to do, without forcing the height in the CSS.
I'd like to do this in just pure CSS + HTML if possible, but I'm not sure it's even possible using JavaScript.
Using width: auto will tell the browser to calculate the width based on proportions.
img {
width: auto;
height: 500px;
}
Here's a jsFiddle to show you. I hope this is what you mean.
Below is the code:
img {
max-width:100%;
height:auto;
}
Related
I'm using an application called iDashboards, and in it there is a feature I can add called a ViFrame that takes very limited HTML to create a custom frame.
My knowledge of HTML is already pretty limited and with no output feedback, it's hard to use trial and error as a tactic.
I'm trying to display an image. The image changes dependent on the person that's selected in the app. The selection is taken care of by itself, but the problem is that the size of the pictures vary. I'm trying to display the image so that it has a definite height and a scaled width.
Displays the full size image. The HEIGHT element doesn't seem to constrain anything. If I add a WIDTH tag it works but the scaling would be messed up. Is there any way to do what I want?
The way I see it, I have two options I can think of:
1. Make every image in the library a square and then specify square dimensions so no distortion
2. Somehow retrieve the original height and width into variables in HTML and specify both tags with height being constant and width being an expression of the ratio between height and width. None of which I know is even possible. Is it? I don't think it allows tags either to go into JavaScript.
Sorry about my very basic knowledge in HTML, be gentle.
Are you using one object and changing the image or using many images and changing which one is displayed? Any way you could try to use width:YOUR_VALUE_HERE; height:auto in your css document, which should keep them all in the same ratio.
Set a particular class on the IMG tag:
<img class='constrained_img' src='/path/to/img.png'>
In your CSS/Stylesheet:
.constrained_img {
max-width:100px;
max-height:100px;
}
That should keep your height and width to no larger than 100px in this case. Any further work you'd need to do server-side processing (a la PHP's getimagesize()), or use a 3rd-party library (I've used Joseph Lencioni's SLIR to good effect), or muck around with JavaScript (which isn't impossible, but off the top of my head I'm not sure how I'd go about it).
Hi I'm trying to create a Responsive Email Template.
I can't make the background images responsive.
Here is a sample of the images code:
a#learn-more { background-size: 100%; display: block; background: url('http://tophitechgadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/learn-more.png')no-repeat; height: 68px; width: 600px; margin: 0 auto; }
Basically We have the following images that I am having a hard time making fluid (responsive)
-logo (a#learn-more)
-banner image (.banner-img)
-learn more button (a#learn-more)
-image1 and image2
I have my demo here: http://jsfiddle.net/nLxjU/3/
Hope you can edit the code to see what my issue why I cant make them responsive.
I'm really stuck here.
You can use a different div with absolute positioning, and containing the image inside it with percentile width and height, so when the screen size changes, the div (and the image inside it) resizes, too. Just place the div below everything with z-index and you're done.
Email-clients, like Outlook (-Express), Mail (OSX) etc, all use different html-engines, and have a lot of restrictions. Especially Outlook seems to be using a limited IE6 based rendering engine. Background images and styling by css classes don't work, and forget about absolute or relative positioning.
Make sure the template also looks good in these email-clients, unless you only aim at mobile email clients (they seem to support all of this).
Take a look at the standards guide (html/css) at http://www.emailology.org/.
You can improve with the following, but as #Willem says you really need to change your approach if making an email template. Many email clients completely remove the head and strip out styles. Some support a limited set of inline styles for formatting and none for layout. In fact an old-school table layout with inline styles is generally the best way to go.
You might find some of this useful: http://www.campaignmonitor.com/guides/mobile/
As for making the best of what you've got so far:
Your .divider and .banner-img elements were set to 600px wide.
Set them as 100%.
Don't have the banner as a background image.
Size your .lpanel and .rpanel images as 100% of the parent's
width.
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/nLxjU/
Here is a fiddle.
There is a standart trick with display:block; and max-width:100%; for responsive images:
img {
display: block;
max-width: 100%;
}
If I resize the width of the container, my image fits this width and also automatically resizes it's own height. This is very great image behavior! Also it doesn't use Javascript.
So, is it possible to do the same trick by resizing the height of the container? I want this image to fit containers height and also automatically resize it's own width proportionally. Of course, without any Javascript, just CSS or any experimental CSS3 features (I know how to do it with Javascript, really).
Add
max-height: 100%;
Also, try not to work with tables - they behave (more) unpredictably than other display types.
See here a most basic example.
EDIT: Couldn't find a way to do this without JS. I have put two methods for you in here - both could be used easily (I've used jQuery, but you don't have to). If that doesn't suffice, than good luck.
I recall it was long ago best practice to hardcode width and height for any image (generally so it allocated appropriate amount of space while loading), but now with most people on high speed and things generally more dynamic, what is the best practice for this? Is it still preferred that any content image have inline size set with html?
It doesn't matter if you set the size using HTML attributes or in a stylesheet, but you should still specify the size for images.
Eventhough images are loaded a lot faster nowadays, there is still a noticable delay between the page being displayed and the images pop up. It's still irritating when the layout of a page changes while the images are loading.
Yes, it is still preferred.
Plenty of people are not on high speed connections, and mobile is becoming more common.
It doesn't have to be inline - you can do it in external CSS. Some older browsers, if you don't specify the size, will just treat it as 0px;
Its always best to use CSS
You could hardcode the image height and width like this
.myimg img {
width: 10px;
height: 10px;
}
your image file itself should be the size you want it to display as, for the most part, if your concerned about slow loading especially! if you've got a 500X800 px image, that you only want to show as 100X200, scale it down! the file size will be much smaller so it will load faster :)
I would say yes if you want to make sure the white space is included in case of the image does not load or during document load. But no if you're scaling/resizing the image with those attributes, as its unnecessary load on the browser and causes image distortion.
If you are designing for cross browser compatibility, then you should at the very least specify the height and width in your CSS for the image itself. I have found inconsistency between FireFox, IE, Opera, etc if sizes are not specified specifically for the image. Due to the fact that each browser, not to mention different versions, handle adherence to HTML Standards differently. I have found that some browsers will do its best to extrapolate the HTML designers intent, while others just croak on the first error. I would also recommend em sizes, rather than pixel or %'s if you intend for the website to be viewed from a mobile device such as a tablet. I will say, however I have just started playing with HTML5 so I don't of the difference in HTML5 with respect to images.
I just answered a similar question on Wordpress Stack Exchange and also on Webmaster Stack. I am posting it here intending to clarify and help more people. (admins/moderators: if this isn't allowed, let me know the proper way to help).
doesn't really means you need to specify width and height in the html. What it means is that is you gotta reserve te proper space and when the image is loaded, the browser doens't have to reflow and repaint the page.
Besides, if you hardcode the dimensions, it kinds of defeats responsive behaviour. If your layout is not responsive, it's ok, but if you want to keep some responsiveness, you could use only CSS to achieve the results.
Most of time, using both width and max-width:100 will do the work, but this post from Smashing Magazine has an interesting technique: instead of using max-width:100%, you can use The Padding-Bottom Hack :
"With the technique, we define the height as a measure relative to the width. Padding and margin have such intrinsic properties, and we can use them to create aspect ratios for elements that do not have any content in them.
Because padding has this capability, we can set padding-bottom to be relative to the width of an element. If we also set height to be 0, we’ll get what we want. [...]
The next step is to place an image inside the container and make sure it fills up the container. To do this, we need to position the image absolutely inside the container, like so:"
.img-container {
padding-bottom: 56.25%; /* 16:9 ratio */
height: 0;
background-color: black;
}
.img-container img {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
}
I want to display a collection of image thumbnails in a grid. The images will come in a variety of sizes, but I'd like to restrict the thumbnails to a particular size (let's say 200px wide and 150px tall).
What I'd like to find are some magical HTML markup and CSS rules that will
Allow the images to be included in normal <img> elements
Ensure that the thumbnails fit into their 200x150 pixel box, retain their proportions, and are centered in whichever dimension they overflow.
Not require JavaScript or specific knowledge of each image's actual dimensions
I'm not sure if this is possible. I can make a (bad) approximation of what I want with the following markup:
<div class="thumb">
<img src="360x450.jpeg">
</div>
and CSS:
.thumb {
width: 200px;
height: 150px;
overflow: hidden;
}
.thumb img {
min-width: 200px;
min-height: 150px;
width: 200px;
}
This attempt breaks in a variety of ways:
Images that are in portrait orientation will be sized correctly, but will overflow through the bottom of the container, resulting in vertically-off-center cropping.
Images that are wide and short will be distorted in the horizontal dimension because of the hard-coded width and min-height rules.
But without that hard-coded width, images that are larger than the minimum height and width will not be resized at all.
If it's at all helpful, I've put up an example that will (hopefully) illustrate what I'm trying to do, here:
http://overloaded.org/tmp/imgtest/
http://overloaded.org/tmp/imgtest/imgtest.zip
I know that I can solve this problem by omitting the <img> element altogether and instead pulling the thumbnails in as a centered background image on the containing element, but, if it's possible, I'd like to keep the <img> elements in the page.
Thanks for any help or pointers you can provide!
Edit: I suppose I should note that an ideal solution will work in IE 6+ and modern browsers, but any solution that works in IE 9+ and other modern browsers (recent WebKit, Gecko, etc.) will be gladly accepted.
You can (kind of) achieve this with the CSS3 background-size additions: contain and cover.
Live Demo
contain (top picture) fits the entire image, keeping aspect ratio. Nothing is cropped.
cover (bottom picture) fills the containing element either vertically or horizontally (depending on the image) and crops the rest.
Possible, probably.
Also, probably not the best idea. Your big issue to overcome here is orientation of thumbnails. What if you're dealing with a panorama? Certainly, shrinking it down is going to create a very unsightly "squished" image, as would a very tall image. It's rare that everyone deals in 4X3 or 16X9 100% of the time. So, you'll need a mechanism to pad out the image. Even if the ratio is correct, it's not going to resize as cleanly as you could with a program like Photoshop or Gimp.
The other major issue in this thought process is that you're going to be sending massive amounts of unnecessary data to the server via the larger images. It'll take longer to load, fill up the DOM unnecessarily, and overall just inhibit the UI experience.
There are a number of ways to get around this, none of them pure CSS. I've tackled this several times, each in a unique way based on the client. For one client that wanted things totally custom, it was a custom uploader, resizing via iMagick (part of image magic) and custom CSS/Javascript for the album with major interactivity. In another instance, I use Gallery as the backend--handling the thumbnail creation, uploading, titling, cropping, and organizing-- and then just pulled the reformatted image links out of the DB to display them in a more appealing manner. You could save yourself even more trouble and just use something like the Flickr api to pull images for your use.
Here's a tut on using ImageMagick to do thumbnails.
.thumb img {
max-width: 200px;
max-height: 150px;
min-width: 200px;
min-height: 150px;
}
Well I know for thumbs you would want it max and min if you want a smaller image to make it bigger and bigger image to make it smaller.
try to set max-width and height and not min because if the image is not exactly that size it will overflow :)