I have a significant difference in a logo image i have when it is displayed in Chrome compared to Firefox (I did my testserver on Firefox and then live in Chrome)
Here are the 2 differences:
Firefox
Chrome
It should be appearing as it does in Firefox. I switched the logo and added in image characteristics to make it fit rather than editing the CSS file.
Here is the code:
<a class="navbar-brand" href="index.html"><img src="img/logo09.png" width="250%" height="250%" alt="logo"></a>
Is there a quick fix to this? Thanks in advance for any help :)
Use stylesheet, inline styles or Dimension attributes are a nightmare to maintain...
height: 123px; /*or any other fixed/dynamic value, unit*/
width: auto; /*let the browser do the scaling */
would help (unless you're running into specificity issues)
Also it's goot to know that in HTML5 % are not allowed on attributes width="" and height=""
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/img
<img> attributes
width
The intrinsic width of the image in HTML5 CSS pixels, or HTML 4 in pixels or as a percentage.
height
The intrinsic height of the image in HTML5 CSS pixels, or HTML 4 in pixels or as a percentage.
The issue you may be having can be related to your use of percentage. You set them to 250% but percent of what? It should be the parent element but what is the parent element set to? The parent of the image is the anchor element which has no width set and is not a block level element.
Try setting the parent element to some fixed width and see if the issue goes away or both browsers display the same.
For example, I set the enclosing anchor element to display:block; and set its width to 500px.
Replace the percentage width with a fixed pixel width. Firefox and Chrome register % measurements differently, due to the fact that the containers are laid out slightly differently. Also, add the measurements to a class and give then an !Important attribute. I believe Chrome has a css file it uses on all the sites visited in it, which gives some design layouts etc.
UPDATE:
After your comment, try looking in developer tools at the element to see if something is overwriting it. If there isn't, then I'm not sure what to suggest. Maybe go with a different design, such as a centered div with the elements inside, or use a navbar with this logo in, or a centralised logo without the bar. There are lots of options. Sorry I couldn't be more help
Related
I've been battling with this simple issue for a while and I'm looking for some help...
I'm trying to make a full width colour banner that spans the full width of the page, but doesn't in any way affect the browser viewport sizing. I want it to be visible to human eyes, but I don't want it to affect the size/location of the browser's start view or scrolling behavior... just like it's not really there.
I also want to be able to place the banner in-line in the HTML.
Here is my test page: http://www.tanatu.com/widthtest
The Green Banner works perfectly, but it's y-location is defined in CSS (which is a pain)
The Pink Banner is my best guess so far, and works as intended on Chrome, but not on Safari on iOS, where the viewport is skewed to one side
Safari iOS Positioning Issue
Correct Positioning
I've been playing with this for months so any help would be MASSIVELY appreciated! :0)
Thanks!
Because you are trying to break out of your parent container that is where your challenge is. You can do this a few ways but I think the easiest without completely changing your markup would be to use a combination of viewport width units and calc()
If you change these attributes on #widthtest4 it should work:
#widthtest4 {
width: 100vw;
margin-left: calc(-50vw + 426px);
}
So I'm working on a quick portfolio and in mobile, the "email me" does not expand across the entire screen as it should, as seen on this screenshot.
I've fiddled around with content width, device width, etc. using numbers, percentages, text values, and nothing has worked to make this page perfect. I rewrote the code to be cleaner and still can't find my mistake. Is it just something I'm overlooking?
You can just view my source to get my code, since the CSS should be there.
UPDATE: I removed the navigation padding and changed all of the device-width values but now the navigation bar does not go completely across. I am very confused since the #navigation and #mobilecontact should essentially have the same widths. I'm using Safari on iPhone.
Can you add the browser and version that you are testing on, because Email me button looks fine for me (occupies entire width) in latest chrome - developer tools.
May be your browser didn't understand 100vw
If you are concerned about the clickable area of "email me" anchor text.
You can make the anchor as display:block, so that it takes up entire row
I think you are using mac safari browser and in safari browser "vw" is not supported so now you can use "px" or "%" and button will be expand.
I have checked.. you need to fix following this
First of all you should remove "width=500" from your meta, highlighted in below image.
Add following in your CSS to fix paddings
* {
box-sizing:border-box;
}
Instead of width: device-width use width: 100% and add more properties in #title . see image
Update CSS for #about, #experience, #skills to width:100%
and thats it you all are done.
Here is final result
All you need to do is to fix font-size
When you want to have a responsive design; you don't need to use specific Width for block level elements.
just
remove numerical width from body's children, then add
body,html
{
width:100%;
box-sizing:border-box;
-webkit-box-sizing:border-box;
-moz-box-sizing:border-box;
}
and then if you want to set padding or margin to viewport element; the standard way is just one element with specific class handle width like bootstrap container class
So I have managed to achieve the required result.
Basically the extra padding you are adding on <div id="navigation"> (padding-left: 350px) is part of the issue.
Also you are incorrectly using the device-width attribute value. One cannot specify the width of html elements using width=device-width;. Width attribute does not accept device-width as an acceptable value.
So replace that with width=100%; or width=100vw; everywhere you have used it. See here for documentation on responsive web design using viewport meta tag and device-width.
I was able to get the button to occupy 100% of the screen width by making these changes.
Remove padding-left: 350px from <div id="navigation">.
For <div id="title"> and <div id="about"> in the media queries for max-width: 500px, changing width from width: device-width to 100% or 100vw.
Here is the output. Let me know if it works out.
I found a similar question here, with the answer: "you should always define the width and height in the image tag." But it is from 2009.
In the meantime, many things has changed on frontend. We are all doing responsive page design now, for many devices and sizes simultaneously (mobile, tablet, desktop...).
So, I wonder is it still necessary to specify the width and height attributes, and for what reason (for responsive, page speed, SEO...)?
An img element has width and height attributes, but they're not required under any DOCTYPE.
Width and height attributes were only 'required' or relevant to reserve the space on the page and prevent the page moving around as it loads - which is important. This can be achieved using CSS instead providing the CSS loads quickly enough - it is likely to load before the images anyway, so all should be good.
It is also possible (and valid) to specify just one attribute, width or height and the browser will calculate the omitted value in order to maintain the correct aspect ratio.
You can specify percent values in the attributes if required. You don't need to use CSS for this, if that is what you are implying.
Also, it is relevant to add - Under HTML5 the width and height can only take a pixel value, in other words a valid non-negative integer.
Whether you use the width and height attributes can depend on your design. If you have lots of differently sized images, do you want to lump all the dimensions in the CSS or include them with the img?
YES, you want to declare the width and the height of an image in 2016.
To make them retina-ready
If you want your image to be retina-ready, you should define a width and an height lower than the actual pixels. If the image is 800x600 specify <img width="400" height="300" />.
To avoid page jump
Without the width and the height the image does not know how large it is, which causes an unwanted jump in the page as it loads (it reflows). Declaring height and width solves this problem.
Note that:
Images with a defined width and height can still be responsive. Simply add max-width and max-height to your CSS. This will cause the image to scale down (not up) when it does not fit the screen (see this sweet retina-ready, responsive kitten). Defining a min-width and min-height will do the opposite.
Adding a huge amount of compression to your JPG (around 50%) to keep the file size low is recommended when you use a single (relative large) image for all screen sizes.
Well, the basic answer to this question (as with most coding issues) is this: it depends on the situation at hand.
I would say that the “best practice” of always specifying the height and width attributes of images making a significant difference to page rendering speeds hark back to the days when designers laid out their websites using tables and spacer GIFs. We have come a long way since then.
An indication for the future is the introduction of the new picture element being drafted into HTML. The picture element is effectively a wrapper for the existing img element, which allows you to specify several images of different sizes via a source element, and the user-agent itself actually determines which version is used.
<picture>
<source media="(min-width: 64em)" src="high-res.jpg">
<source media="(min-width: 37.5em)" src="med-res.jpg">
<source src="low-res.jpg">
<img src="fallback.jpg" alt="This picture loads on non-supporting browsers.">
<p>Accessible text.</p>
</picture>
As you can see from this example code above (taken from the Intel Developer Zone's article on the HTML5 picture element) there are no height or width attributes on the img element itself.
Here are a selection of resources that will help you to decide the most appropriate method of declaring image sizes:
Responsive Images Community Group
W3C Working Group Note: Use Cases and Requirements for Standardizing Responsive Images
WHATWG HTML Living Standard: The picture element
Good standards are always worth a recommendation. With a little extra code it's quite easy to merge static (px) values of the img tag and generic (em, %) values supplied by CSS. And simpler still, get rid of the img tag altogether and set the picture as background of a div with a unique ID. If you have multiple images, use sprites and assign each picture to its corresponding div. Your mark-up sources would then look something like <div id="image_001"></div> - that's all. Scales all by itself; no need for bloatware like JQuery, etc.
If we're talking 'bout responsive, you may use bootstrap (if not, start doing this).
When working with images, you should add the class img-responsive, this will modify the width of the image if necessary and the height will be auto, so if width decreases, height will decrease too.
You will always have an image that keeps the same % of its container and will never loose the aspect ratio.
There's no relation with SEO and image size declarations.
Page speed will be the same always, so if the image is 800 x 600 px, you'll load the full image, even if you declare it as 60 x 40 px.
You must think that, even using img-responsive, the max width and height of this image will be the real size of the image. So if we have a 800 x 600 px image, it will not enlarge it (because it'll become loosing quality).
So in 2016, it's recommendable to NOT declare height and width of an image. Instead use bootstrap's img-responsive class, other responsive framework class that gets the same result, or hand-made the proper jquery and css to reach the same.
Hope it helps!
Yes, It is still relevant to specify width and height attribute on images in HTML.
Images often take longer to load than the HTML code that makes up the rest of the page. It is, therefore, a good idea to specify the size of
the image so that the browser can render the rest of the text on the
page while leaving the right amount of space for the image that is
still loading.
Hence, specifying width and height attribute on image will improve the webpage performance by protecting from delay in loading.
Yes, it is necessary to add height and width attributes to the img tag along with the src and alt attributes to prevent page-jumping. When our page loads, the specified space will be preserved for the image so that the it can occupy that place peacefully.
But, there is another problem that will arise here Responsiveness.
Once we give height and width attribute to img tag, the image will tend to stay in the same height for all screen-sizes which will make the image to shrink.
To avoid this, we need to add height: auto; to the image in the CSS file.
I'm designing a website and using jquery UI majorly for the icons/icon-classes it provides.
While testing in chrome what I see the default height of a span element which wraps some text without padding or border gets a height of 20 px.
I understand it will differ with the type of font and size, the defaults and the browser. Is there anyway I can set height of a text to a given size?
If I understand correctly, it seems your facing this problem because of the way different browsers render fonts.
If you font sizes are influencing their parent elements size, then you may need to rethink how you are using margins and padding's.
EDIT
You could use line-height to try and tame the behavior.
This question already has answers here:
Should I specify height and width attributes for my IMGs in HTML?
(5 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
Is it better coding practice to define an images size in the img tag's width and height attributes?
<img src="images/academia_vs_business.png" width="740" height="382" alt="" />
Or in the CSS style with width/height?
<img src="images/academia_vs_business.png" style="width:740px; height:382px;" alt="" />
Or both?
<img src="images/academia_vs_business.png" width="740" height="382" style="width:740px; height:382px" alt="" />
I'm going to go against the grain here and state that the principle of separating content from layout (which would justify the answers that suggest using CSS) does not always apply to image height and width.
Each image has an innate, original height and width that can be derived from the image data. In the framework of content vs layout, I would say that this derived height and width information is content, not layout, and should therefore be rendered as HTML as element attributes.
This is much like the alt text, which can also be said to be derived from the image. This also supports the idea that an arbitrary user agent (e.g. a speech browser) should have that information in order to relate it to the user. At the least, the aspect ratio could prove useful ("image has a width of 15 and a height of 200"). Such user agents wouldn't necessarily process any CSS.
The spec says that the width and height attributes can also be used to override the height and width conveyed in the actual image file. I am not suggesting they be used for this. To override height and width, I believe CSS (inline, embedded or external) is the best approach.
So depending on what you want to do, you would specify one and/or the other. I think ideally, the original height and width would always be specified as HTML element attributes, while styling information should optionally be conveyed in CSS.
The historical reason to define height/width in tags is so that browsers can size the actual <img> elements in the page even before the CSS and/or image resources are loaded. If you do not supply height and width explicitly the <img> element will be rendered at 0x0 until the browser can size it based on the file. When this happens it causes a visual reflow of the page once the image loads, and is compounded if you have multiple images on the page. Sizing the <img> via height/width creates a physical placeholder in the page flow at the correct size, enabling your content to load asynchronously without disrupting the user experience.
Alternately, if you are doing mobile-responsive design, which is a best practice these days, it's quite common to specify a width (or max-width) only and define the height as auto. That way when you define media queries (e.g. CSS) for different screen widths, you can simply adjust the image width and let the browser deal with keeping the image height / aspect ratio correct. This is sort of a middle ground approach, as you may get some reflow, but it allows you to support a broad range of screen sizes, so the benefit usually outweighs the negative.
Finally, there are times when you may not know the image size ahead of time (image src might be loaded dynamically, or can change during the lifetime of the page via script) in which case using CSS only makes sense.
The bottom line is that you need to understand the trade-offs and decide which strategy makes the most sense for what you're trying to achieve.
While it's ok to use inline styles, your purposes may better be served by including an external CSS file on the page. This way you could define a class of image (i.e. 'Thumbnail', 'Photo', 'Large', etc) and assign it a constant size. This will help when you end up with images requiring the same placement across multiple pages.
Like this:
In your header:
<link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="css/style.css" />
Your HTML:
<img class="thumbnail" src="images/academia_vs_business.png" alt="" />
In css/style.css:
img.thumbnail {
width: 75px;
height: 75px;
}
If you'd like to use inline styles though, it's probably best to set the width and height using the style attribute for the sake of readability.
Definitely not both. Other than that I'd have to say it's a personal preference. I'd use css if I had many images the same size to reduce code.
.my_images img {width: 20px; height:20px}
In the long term CSS may win out due to HTML attribute deprecation and more likely due to the growth of vector image formats like SVG where it can actually make sense to scale images using non-pixel based units like % or em.
<img id="uxcMyImageId" src"myImage" width="100" height="100" />
specifying width and height in the image tag is a good practice..this way when the page loads there is space allocated for the image and the layout does not suffer any jerks even if the image takes a long time to load.
Option a.
Simple straight fwd. What you see is what you get easy to make calculations.
Option b. Too messy to do this inline unless you want to have a site that can stretch. IE if you used the with:86em however modern browsers seem to handle this functionally adequately for my purposes.. . Personally the only time that i would use something like this is if i were to create a thumbnails catalogue.
/*css*/
ul.myThumbs{}
ul.myThumbs li {float:left; width:50px;}
ul.myThumbs li img{width:50px; height:50px;border:0;}
<!--html-->
<ul><li>
<img src="~/img/products/thumbs/productid.jpg" alt="" />
</li></ul>
Option c. Too messy to maintain.
I'm using contentEditable to allow rich text editing in my app. I don't know how it slips through, but when an image is inserted, and then resized (by dragging the anchors on its side), it generates something like this:
<img style="width:55px;height:55px" width="100" height="100" src="pic.gif" border=0/>
(subsequent testing shown that inserted images did not contain this "rogue" style attr+param).
When rendered by the browser (IE7), the width and height in the style overrides the img width/height param (so the image is shown like how I wanted it.. resized to 55px x 55px. So everything went well so it seems.
When I output the page to a ms-word document via setting the mime type application/msword or pasting the browser rendering to msword document, all the images reverted back to its default size. I finally found out that msword is discarding the style and using the img width and height tag (which has the value of the original image size).
Took me a while to found this out. Anyway... I've coded a javascript function to traverse all tags and "transferring" the img style.width and style.height values into the img.width and img.height, then clearing both the values in style, before I proceed saving this piece of html/richtext data into the database.
cheers.
opps.. my answer is.. no. leave both attributes directly under img, rather than style.