How to make img scale in flexbox? - html

I have this huge image (I know, bad, will be replaced by some smaller ones for different viewport-sizes) that I want to display next to another div. Both elements are inside a flexbox, so flex-items.
See: https://jsfiddle.net/aedtyj9y/
My problem is that the image is way too big. What I would want is the image to take up all the space of #test which itself should only maximum take up 30% of the whole horizontal space, so having 70% of the main class='flex-container' for details and the rest for a an image that is contained in the 30% (preferably cropped instead of scaled)
Sounds easy, right? Just add max-width:30% to #test!
WRONG! https://jsfiddle.net/04wohehh/
Image is still too big.
So what, just add max-width:100%; max-height:100%; to the img itself, right?
Again, not working as intended:
https://jsfiddle.net/wqhtqq8d/

is this what you looking for?
set flex: 0 70% in .details
set flex: 0 30%; display: flex; align-items: center in #test
html,
body {
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
}
#info {
background-color: #2aabd2;
max-width: 100vw;
min-height: 100vh;
}
#info nav {
max-width: 5%;
}
.flex-container {
display: flex;
}
main {
background-color: red;
}
.details {
flex: 0 70%
}
#test {
flex: 0 30%;
background: blue;
display: flex;
align-items: center
}
.testimage {
display: block;
max-width: 100%;
background-color: blueviolet;
box-shadow: 0 0 10vh #111;
}
<section id="info" class="flex-container">
<nav id="node">
<ul>
<li>Home</li>
<li>Other</li>
</ul>
</nav>
<main class="flex-container">
<div class="details">
Blablablablabla
</div>
<div id="test">
<img class="testimage" src="http://placehold.it/2000x2000">
</div>
</main>
</section>

Here is my take: https://jsfiddle.net/hq2ppqr5/
What I did:
Added back in the max-width: 100% and min-width: 100% for
img, embed, object, video in order to ensure it the img does not
overflow/break out of it's "cage"
Removed margin-left: auto; from #info main as it is
unnecessary, flexbox should take care of that!
Added flex-grow:1; to #info main to let it fill up the
remaining (horizontal) space!
added flex-grow: 1 to the first child of the section
Added a background-color to the nav
Changed main to section (during fiddling around :))
One note though: it still looks different in firefox and chromium, but this seems to be an issue with padding.
Firefox evenly centers both flex-items, while chromium puts the image at the bottom. I am not sure what exactly is causing this.

Related

Children of overflowing flex container exceed container [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Can't scroll to top of flex item that is overflowing container
(12 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I've been on this for a while now and tried a lot of the solutions I've seen across different Stackoverflow questions / blogposts / ... But I honestly can't figure out what's going wrong.
I've got a flexed div with two divs in there. The top div A has a fixed height, the other div B fills the rest using flex: 1;. If the screen is resized and it's smaller than the height of A + B together, then B will start overflowing. I want it to scroll, but I also want the content to be fully visible when scrolling. For some reason which I can't figure out, the content renders out of the top of div B as you can see in this screenshot of my fiddle:
Some of the previously asked questions got me somewhere. For example setting the body to height: auto;, but then when my screen is bigger than A + B it can't be center aligned anymore. min-height: 0; also doesn't seem to help in this case.
How can I make sure my container overflows but will fully show the content of it?
You can solve the issue by giving .second:
flex-basis: auto;
flex-shrink: 0;
Or, with shorthand: flex: 1 0 auto;
Working example:
html, body {
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
padding: 0;
margin: 0;
}
body {
display: flex;
flex-direction: column;
}
.second {
flex: 1 0 auto;
background: blue;
width: 100%;
display: flex;
justify-content: center;
align-items: center;
min-height: 0;
overflow: auto;
}
.container {
display: flex;
flex-direction: column;
width: 100%;
max-width: 500px;
min-height: 0;
/* added this to make it obvious. Obviously, not needed */
padding: 2rem 0;
}
.container-child {
height: 110px;
background: green;
width: 100%;
}
.container-child:not(:last-child) {
margin-bottom: 30px;
}
<div class="second">
<div class="container">
<div class="container-child"></div>
<div class="container-child"></div>
<div class="container-child"></div>
</div>
</div>
I added some top and bottom padding to .container to make it obvious that it's working - but it's not needed.
Now let's look at why this is happening. When you apply .second { flex:1; } it means:
flex-grow: 1;
flex-shrink: 1;
flex-basis: 0%;
... which allows it to have a smaller size than its contents.
Whenever you have a bigger child centered in a smaller parent, the browser won't provide a scrollbar to top (or to left, when horizontal), because then , if the top of the parent and the top of the child coincide and the child is bigger than the parent, the child is no longer centered, is it?
The same happens when using other centering techniques and you center a bigger child in a smaller parent.
To fix the problem, you need to prevent the child from outgrowing the parent.
In this case, it meant sizing .second based from its content (flex-basis: auto) and not allowing it to shrink: (flex-shrink: 0;).
To better visualize the issue, consider this example:
.left, .right {
position: relative;
border: 1px solid red;
padding: 1rem 5rem;
}
.left {
left: -5rem;
}
.right {
right: -5rem;
}
<div class="left">
I'm taken left
</div>
<div class="right">
I'm taken right
</div>
If the browser provided scrollbars to allow you to scroll to beginning of .left, it would mean that left: -5rem did not apply. I hope that makes sense, I can't explain it better.

Display:flex and scrolling inner divs

https://jsfiddle.net/wqmm0kxb/5/
html:
<div class="full">
<header><h1>header stuff</h1></header>
<section>
<div>
{lots and lots of content}
</div>
<div>b</div>
<div>c</div>
</section>
</div>
css:
.full {
position: fixed;
top: 0px;
left: 0px;
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
display: flex;
flex-direction: column;
header {
flex: 78px 0 0;
background: #ececec;
color: black;
padding-left: 33px;
}
section {
flex: auto 1 1;
display: flex;
align-items: stretch;
> div {
flex: auto 1 1;
overflow-y: auto;
}
}
}
My outer container, '.full', takes up the full width and height of the screen, and uses display:flex to make sure that the header + section children stretch to take up all the space beneath them.
Now, what I want is naturally for the header to take up 78px and the section to take up {full height - 78px} -- but without doing anything like calc preferrably. And I want to be able to scroll in the div children of section, without scrolling affecting the other divs or the page as a whole.
This works perfectly in Chrome, but open up my fiddle in firefox, edge, ie and it doesn't work as expected. Section gets the height of {lots and lots of content} rather than only taking the remaining space of '.full'
What should I do to achieve the Chrome-like layout that I'm expecting?
Apply the overflow-y:auto for your section also, that will fix the issue in IE and Firefox.
section {
flex: auto 1 1;
display: flex;
align-items: stretch;
overflow-y: auto;
> div {
flex: auto 1 1;
overflow-y: auto;
}
}
Fiddle DEMO

column flex with height 0 padding trick

I have 2 divs that are placed on top of each other. For purposes of alignment, I am using display: flex and flex: column on the div containing these two divs. However, the first div uses the "height 0 padding" trick for videos. The problem I'm having, is that when using flex: column and change the width of the screen, the height doesn't change (and I want the height to change so that it matches the ratio for the video). What ends up happening is that the div stays the same, and the video shrinks within it and it looks ugly because there is extra background.
Plunker: https://plnkr.co/edit/TaeF5f8VufJWPU3GRZPr?p=preview
(in short, I want it such that when I change the width of the browser, the red div's height gets smaller)
CSS
/* Styles go here */
body {
height: 100%;
}
.container {
height: 80vh;
display: flex;
flex-flow: column;
}
.video {
flex: none;
height: 0;
padding-bottom: 30%;
background-color: red;
width: 80%;
}
.next-content {
flex: 1 0 auto;
width: 80%;
background-color: blue;
}
HTML:
<body>
<h1>Hello Plunker!</h1>
<div class="container">
<div class="video"></div>
<div class="next-content"></div>
</div>

Footer which takes the rest of the remaining window height but at least a specified amount of px

I found several questions about but none of their solutions was working for me so here we go again.
Let's say I have this template of HTML
<html>
<div id="header">...</div>
<div id="contentA">...</div>
<div id="contentB">...</div>
<div id="footer">...</div>
</html>
The footer div should be at least 80px height, but if those 80px plus the height of all other 3 divs is not enough to fullfill the screen I want the footer to increase as much as the screen is filled with it below header, contentA and contentB.
BG-Color Solution
If you just want to let the remaining space have the same background-color as the footer (but not the body), you could add the footer bg-color to the html-tag:
html {
background-color: #footer_color;
}
body {
background-color: #body_color;
}
#footer {
min-height: 80px;
}
.
JS-Solution
If you have something more complex within your footer, you could use javascript/jquery to calculate the remaining space and set the footer to that height.
There is a similar question with a code example here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/14329340/3589841
.
Flexbox-Solution
If you only care about the latest browsers you can use the flexbox-box-model:
HTML:
<html>
<body>
<div id="flex_container">
<div id="header">...</div>
<div id="contentA">...</div>
<div id="contentB">...</div>
<div id="footer">...</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
CSS:
html, body {
min-height: 100%;
}
#flex_container {
display: flex;
flex-direction: column;
flex-wrap: nowrap;
justify-content: flex-start;
align-items: flex-start;
}
#header {
flex: 0 1 auto;
}
#contentA {
flex: 0 1 auto;
}
#contentB {
flex: 0 1 auto;
}
#footer {
flex: 0 1 100%;
min-height: 80px;
}
I believe you're going for something like this, have a look http://jsfiddle.net/dusUK/
Using CSS, we create a class, which in this case is fullheight, and we apply the following:
.fullheight {
display: block;
position: relative;
background: red;
height: 100%;
}
We also then apply the following to html, body
html, body {
height: 100%;
min-height: 100%;
}

Div width 100% minus fixed amount of pixels

How can I achieve the following structure without using tables or JavaScript? The white borders represent edges of divs and aren't relevant to the question.
The size of the area in the middle is going to vary, but it will have exact pixel values and the whole structure should scale according to those values. To simplify it, I'd need a way to set "100% - n px" width to the top-middle and bottom-middle divs.
I'd appreciate a clean cross-browser solution, but in case it's not possible, CSS hacks will do.
Here's a bonus. Another structure I've been struggling with and end up using tables or JavaScript. It's slightly different, but introduces new problems. I've been mainly using it in jQuery-based windowing system, but I'd like to keep the layout out of the script and only control the size of one element (the middle one).
New way I've just stumbled upon: css calc():
.calculated-width {
width: -webkit-calc(100% - 100px);
width: -moz-calc(100% - 100px);
width: calc(100% - 100px);
}​
Source: css width 100% minus 100px
You can use nested elements and padding to get a left and right edge on the toolbar. The default width of a div element is auto, which means that it uses the available width. You can then add padding to the element and it still keeps within the available width.
Here is an example that you can use for putting images as left and right rounded corners, and a center image that repeats between them.
The HTML:
<div class="Header">
<div>
<div>This is the dynamic center area</div>
</div>
</div>
The CSS:
.Header {
background: url(left.gif) no-repeat;
padding-left: 30px;
}
.Header div {
background: url(right.gif) top right no-repeat;
padding-right: 30px;
}
.Header div div {
background: url(center.gif) repeat-x;
padding: 0;
height: 30px;
}
While Guffa's answer works in many situations, in some cases you may not want the left and/or right pieces of padding to be the parent of the center div. In these cases, you can use a block formatting context on the center and float the padding divs left and right. Here's the code
The HTML:
<div class="container">
<div class="left"></div>
<div class="right"></div>
<div class="center"></div>
</div>
The CSS:
.container {
width: 100px;
height: 20px;
}
.left, .right {
width: 20px;
height: 100%;
float: left;
background: black;
}
.right {
float: right;
}
.center {
overflow: auto;
height: 100%;
background: blue;
}
I feel that this element hierarchy is more natural when compared to nested nested divs, and better represents what's on the page. Because of this, borders, padding, and margin can be applied normally to all elements (ie: this 'naturality' goes beyond style and has ramifications).
Note that this only works on divs and other elements that share its 'fill 100% of the width by default' property. Inputs, tables, and possibly others will require you to wrap them in a container div and add a little more css to restore this quality. If you're unlucky enough to be in that situation, contact me and I'll dig up the css.
jsfiddle here: jsfiddle.net/RgdeQ
Enjoy!
You can make use of Flexbox layout. You need to set flex: 1 on the element that needs to have dynamic width or height for flex-direction: row and column respectively.
Dynamic width:
HTML
<div class="container">
<div class="fixed-width">
1
</div>
<div class="flexible-width">
2
</div>
<div class="fixed-width">
3
</div>
</div>
CSS
.container {
display: flex;
}
.fixed-width {
width: 200px; /* Fixed width or flex-basis: 200px */
}
.flexible-width {
flex: 1; /* Stretch to occupy remaining width i.e. flex-grow: 1 and flex-shrink: 1*/
}
Output:
.container {
display: flex;
width: 100%;
color: #fff;
font-family: Roboto;
}
.fixed-width {
background: #9BCB3C;
width: 200px; /* Fixed width */
text-align: center;
}
.flexible-width {
background: #88BEF5;
flex: 1; /* Stretch to occupy remaining width */
text-align: center;
}
<div class="container">
<div class="fixed-width">
1
</div>
<div class="flexible-width">
2
</div>
<div class="fixed-width">
3
</div>
</div>
Dynamic height:
HTML
<div class="container">
<div class="fixed-height">
1
</div>
<div class="flexible-height">
2
</div>
<div class="fixed-height">
3
</div>
</div>
CSS
.container {
display: flex;
}
.fixed-height {
height: 200px; /* Fixed height or flex-basis: 200px */
}
.flexible-height {
flex: 1; /* Stretch to occupy remaining height i.e. flex-grow: 1 and flex-shrink: 1*/
}
Output:
.container {
display: flex;
flex-direction: column;
height: 100vh;
color: #fff;
font-family: Roboto;
}
.fixed-height {
background: #9BCB3C;
height: 50px; /* Fixed height or flex-basis: 100px */
text-align: center;
display: flex;
flex-direction: column;
justify-content: center;
}
.flexible-height {
background: #88BEF5;
flex: 1; /* Stretch to occupy remaining width */
text-align: center;
display: flex;
flex-direction: column;
justify-content: center;
}
<div class="container">
<div class="fixed-height">
1
</div>
<div class="flexible-height">
2
</div>
<div class="fixed-height">
3
</div>
</div>
The usual way to do it is as outlined by Guffa, nested elements. It's a bit sad having to add extra markup to get the hooks you need for this, but in practice a wrapper div here or there isn't going to hurt anyone.
If you must do it without extra elements (eg. when you don't have control of the page markup), you can use box-sizing, which has pretty decent but not complete or simple browser support. Likely more fun than having to rely on scripting though.
Maybe I'm being dumb, but isn't table the obvious solution here?
<div class="parent">
<div class="fixed">
<div class="stretchToFit">
</div>
.parent{ display: table; width 100%; }
.fixed { display: table-cell; width: 150px; }
.stretchToFit{ display: table-cell; vertical-align: top}
Another way that I've figured out in chrome is even simpler, but man is it a hack!
.fixed{
float: left
}
.stretchToFit{
display: table-cell;
width: 1%;
}
This alone should fill the rest of the line horizontally, as table-cells do. However, you get some strange issues with it going over 100% of its parent, setting the width to a percent value fixes it though.
We can achieve this using flex-box very easily.
If we have three elements like Header, MiddleContainer and Footer. And we want to give some fixed height to Header and Footer. then we can write like this:
For React/RN(defaults are 'display' as flex and 'flexDirection' as column), in web css we'll have to specify the body container or container containing these as display: 'flex', flex-direction: 'column' like below:
container-containing-these-elements: {
display: flex,
flex-direction: column
}
header: {
height: 40,
},
middle-container: {
flex: 1, // this will take the rest of the space available.
},
footer: {
height: 100,
}
what if your wrapping div was 100% and you used padding for a pixel amount, then if the padding # needs to be dynamic, you can easily use jQuery to modify your padding amount when your events fire.
I had a similar issue where I wanted a banner across the top of the screen that had one image on the left and a repeating image on the right to the edge of the screen. I ended up resolving it like so:
CSS:
.banner_left {
position: absolute;
top: 0px;
left: 0px;
width: 131px;
height: 150px;
background-image: url("left_image.jpg");
background-repeat: no-repeat;
}
.banner_right {
position: absolute;
top: 0px;
left: 131px;
right: 0px;
height: 150px;
background-image: url("right_repeating_image.jpg");
background-repeat: repeat-x;
background-position: top left;
}
The key was the right tag. I'm basically specifying that I want it to repeat from 131px in from the left to 0px from the right.
In some contexts, you can leverage margin settings to effectively specify "100% width minus N pixels". See the accepted answer to this question.