enter image description hereI need to remove a picture (using css) if a device visits that is a mobile user. I’ve tried media queries with the display:none and many other things And nothing. Maybe I’m just not using proper syntax or putting it in the right spot? Some help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
In the example you've posted, the stylesheet is targeting the class:
.post .sc_image img
but your code example only shows an image tag without the parent containers that have the .post .sc_image classes.
You'd expect to see the image inside some divs (etc) like this:
<div class="post">
<div class="sc_image">
<img />
</div>
</div>
For your example to work correctly, remove .post .sc_image out of your css.
However, I'd guess that these other classes are because your complete code has more to it than just the tag sitting by itself. With that in mind, I would assume that some other style within your application is overwriting the display:none property.
<div class="slid-info">
<div class="item-logo">
<img src="img/nlogo.png" class="img-responsive" alt="nike"/>
</div>
<div class="carousel-caption">
all model
</div>
</div>
this is a element where i have image-logo this image dont work on responsive plz help me what wrong
I agree with TRiNE I think you need to supply some code either in codepen or plunker etc otherwise people are quite restricted. With that said, I've just tried a dummy test in codepen and the img-responsive utility class works as expected there, in the sense that the image I tested with this class had been styled as expected.
Looking at your screenshot, though, and I'm clutching at straws here based the information you have provided, but is it possible that the styles you have applied to the parent div .item-logo are conflicting here? You are also applying the same styles from .img-responsive to your logo image on line 174 of styles.css - was this to prove that the utility class was not working for you?
Sorry if this isn't the answer your looking for, but if you can supply an example as suggested previously then I'd be happy to look again :)
I have a div which contains the following layout (top image): http://tinypic.com/r/287eu88/8
I am trying to work out how to move the elements to the configuration shown in the bottom image on resize/ on mobile devices but I can't work it out.
Here is the jsfiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/9DZSA/1/
If someone could point me in the right direction that would be good, I am a beginner so my code is probably not very good so any pointers would be great too!
Thanks!
"Links to jsFiddle.net must be accompanied by code" - Well I am not targetting a specific element but here is the html to satisfy the requirement:
LATEST PROJECT
<h3 id="latestDescription">aboutaboutabout</h3>
<div id="latestSub">
<h4 id="latestSubheading">Insert Project Name</h4>
<p id="latestSubdescription">Out believe has request not how comfort evident.
<br>Extremity sweetness difficult behaviour he of.
<br>With my them if up many.</p>
</div>
<div id="latestIcons">
<div id="latestOne">
<img id="latestIcon1" src="http://placehold.it/80" alt ""/>
<h5 class="latestH5">Design</h5>
<p class="latestP">Instantly gentleman contained belonging exquisite now direction she ham.</p>
</div>
<div id="latestTwo">
<img id="latestIcon2" src="http://placehold.it/80" alt ""/>tH5">Accuracy & Details</h5>
<p class="latestP">Its hence ten smile age means. Seven chief sight far point any.</p>
</div>
<div id="latestThree">
<img id="latestIcon3" src="http://placehold.it/80" alt ""/>
<h5 class="latestH5">Posibilities</h5>
<p class="latestP">Children me laughing we prospect answered followed.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="latestPhotoDiv">
<img id="latestphoto" src="http://placehold.it/350" alt />
</div>
There are few possible ways to do it. You can select according to your need
You can use media queries in which you define different stylesheets for different screens. This is the most used way currently. Sneak Peek:
http://css-tricks.com/css-media-queries/ and
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/CSS/Media_queries
You can use the viewport meta tag. Sneak Peek:https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Mozilla/Mobile/Viewport_meta_tag
You can design everything in % (fluid responsive) but that part is very tricky. From my experience I can say that designing a full
website giving everything in % is very difficult.
I will suggest you to learn media query. Its quite simple and reliable.
You will have to take a look at media queries.
Media queries give you a way to target certain CSS properties only to specific media properties (including of course the viewport size, but also if it's print, or black and white, and so on).
Many people would suggest that you begin with a mobile-first approach, that is, you start by applying the CSS for the mobile, minimal version, and apply media queries at break points as your viewports get wider, enclosing your CSS like so:
#media (min-width: 480px){
/* CSS goes here */
}
I'm trying to do a simple layout on bootstrap but I can't find a solution that doesn't involve javascript.
I need the template to be like this on medium / large desktops: http://jsfiddle.net/Xx3G4/1/
And it must stay like this on small devices: http://jsfiddle.net/Xx3G4/
If I wasn't clear enough, I need the block "p1":
<div class="teemo-block">p1</div>
to be right after the block "stuff" on medium / larges and after the news on small / x-small.
PS:
Do not forget to re size the jsfiddle to see it on the correct viewport;
The solution of this problem using javascript is pretty easy, the problem is finding one without the use of it.
Thanks for reply
If you are using twitter bootstrap and if you don't have problem creating 2 "p1" blocks, one before and the other after the block "stuff", then there is one solution with the bootstrap class name. Bootstrap has a class called hidden-phone(renamed as hidden-xs in version 3), which hides the element with this class names in phones. Check here
The other solution would be to create 2 blocks as said above, use media queries to display one block and hide the other block. But this is not a pretty good solution, just in case if you don't find any other way without involving javascript
Just reposting and translating the answer I got on Portuguese SO (https://pt.stackoverflow.com/questions/9508/posicao-dos-blocos-em-bootstrap/9721#9721)
I have removed the classes col-push and col-pull and replaced them to pull-left and pull-right, also from bootstrap.
<div class="col-xs-12 col-md-4 pull-right">
<div class="teemo-block">
p1
</div>
</div>
Since, by default, all the 'cols' on bootstrap has float left, if you want to change that you must change it manually, that's why the news block got the pull-left and the other blocks got the pull-right, forcing them to stay on the desired position.
Check the result:
http://jsfiddle.net/luckmattos/hsCw9/7/
[Note: for those who may be confusing this question with "why not use tables for HTML layout", I am not asking that question. The question I'm asking is why is a grid layout fundamentally different from a table layout.]
I'm researching CSS libraries (in particular Bootstrap) for a project. I am a programmer rather than a web designer and I feel I could benefit from a library that encapsulates good design.
We all know that it's bad practice to use HTML tables to accomplish basic site layout because it mixes presentation with content. One of the benefits provided by CSS libraries like Bootstrap is that they offer the ability to create "grid" layouts without using tables. I'm having a little trouble, however, understanding how their grid layouts differ in any meaningful way from the equivalent table layout.
In other words, what is the fundamental difference between these two examples of HTML? Am I wrong in thinking that the grid layout is simply a table with another name?
<div class="row">
<div class="span16"></div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="span4"></div>
<div class="span4"></div>
<div class="span4"></div>
<div class="span4"></div>
</div>
and
<table>
<tr>
<td colspan=4></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</table>
The difference is that the first example is semantically marked up, assuming the data being marked up is not actually tabular. <table> should only be used for tabular data, not for any data which happens to be displayed in a layout similar to a table.
It is correct though that using CSS packages like Bootstrap, which require you to assign classes to HTML elements which are not semantic but presentational, reduces the separation of content and presentation, making the difference somewhat moot. You should be assigning semantically meaningful classes to your elements and use lesscss mixins (or similar technology) to assign presentational behavior defined in the CSS framework to these classes, instead of assigning the presentational classes to the elements directly.
Say:
<div class="products">
<div class="product"></div>
</div>
.products {
.row;
}
.products > .product {
.span16;
}
Note that I say should. In practice this is not necessarily always the more workable option, but it should be the theoretical goal.
I believe that CBroe comment is the best option, so I chose to clarify it.
Avoid div's. A div should be your last resort, not your first option. Instead, try to use Bootstrap classes on the actual elements. For instance:
<form class="container">
<fieldset class="row">
<label class="span4" for"search">Type your search</label>
<input class="span6" type="text" id="search" />
</fieldset>
</form>
It is a shame to use fieldset to contain a single field, but it is semantically best than using a div for the same thing. The HTML5 standard defines many new container elements, such as article, section, header, footer and many more. In some cases you will have to use div's, but if you minimize it's use then your code will be way more semantic.
The fundamental difference is that you can "reflow" the layout with Bootstrap for different display sizes simply using media queries without needing to change your markup. For example, I can decide that on desktops, I want your 4 divs to be on same row because user has high resolution wide display but on phones I want 2 dives on one row and next divs on next rows. So this way I can adapt my column count in each row using media queries. If you use hard coded HTML tables then it is very difficult to do this.
Having said that, I don't really like bootstrap implementation for the following reasons:
It has breakpoints hard coded in pixels. This means, as phones and tables advance in display resolution, your website may start showing unexpected layouts on those devices. Pixel count is poor proxy for display size.
It limits maximum used display area to 1170px which is again a bummer for users with nice wide displays they can actually use to see more content in your app.
Bootstrap's layout is not source independent, i.e., you can't change column order that is set in HTML. This is however more of a pedantic point.
The default layout is for very small resolution and higher resolution layouts trigger only when media queries fire, which IMO, is a poor choice considering phones will continue to have better resolution and sooner than later your website would have default layout set for outdated mobile devices.
Bootstrap layouts are not truly "worry free" in the sense that you have to read their fine print to see all the bugs and browsers they didn't see worthy of supporting but which you may care about. If you are targeting users in South Korea or China, you would be in for surprise, for example.
So, not everything is gold in bootstrap and their approach is not necessarily always the best possible (as an aside, one other thing I despise in bootstrap is their obsession with so called "jumbotrones" - those real estate wasting inconvenient in-your-face headers - which I hope community doesn't start taking as "new standard"). Personally I use CSS table layout (display:table) these days which has similar benefits as bootstrap without hardcoding <table> in my markup. I can still use media queries to rearrange rows depending on portrait or landscape orientation, for example. However the most important benefit is that my layouts are truly pixel or even percentage independent. For example, in 3 column layout, I let content to decide how much space first and last columns should take. There is no pixel or even percentage width. The center column grabs up all the remaining space (which is good thing for my app, but it may not be for others). In addition, I use ems in media query break points which bootstrap surprisingly doesn't.
I use the Bootstrap grid for page layout, tables for tabular data.
I think of the grid in Bootstrap, not as a grid in the developer sense, like a gridview control, but more in the design page-layout sense - as a grid to contain the page contents. And even though the Bootstrap grid could be also used to create a conventional grid containing tabular data, as deceze pointed out, this kind of grid is better suited for HTML tables - which are still acceptable to use in this scenario.
if you just use tables i think you will miss out on alot of flexibility in re-sizing your document for mobile/tablets without having to make a separate page for each device. once your table structure is defined all you can really do is zoom in and out.
While there's not necessarily much semantic difference between the two sets of markup (since the classes used by Bootstrap's grid system are indeed purely presentational), one very important distinction is that the grid system is much more flexible.
It would be very difficult, for example, to make your table-based layout respond to different screen sizes. There's no way to tell the browser to display one td element below another td in the same row. Whereas with the div example, that's easy to do, and the same markup can be presented in different ways even when the classes are "presentational" in the sense that they define the relative proportions and positioning of the elements on the page.
If I may, I'd like to summarize what I gathered from the other comments and the link explosion I experienced from this page:
The problem with using tables isn't the grid layout, it is the attempt to express it with HTML instead of CSS.
Bootstrap allows grid layouts through (mostly) pure CSS, which is why it is OK. The 'mostly' part comes because your HTML will still be contaminated by your layout data, but more subtly:
<nav class="span4"> ... </nav>
<article class="span8"> ... </article>
This is surely significantly more semantic and maintainable than the old tabular designs, but the 'span4' and 'span8' are still display-data embedded into our HTML. However, since design can never be truly be decoupled from our data (e.g., nested divs), this is a reasonable price to pay.
That being said, even this coupling can be broken, if you use some more modern CSS features provided by a pre-processed language such as LESS. The same example:
<nav id="secondary-nav"> ... </nav>
<article id="main-content"> ... </article>
Coupled with the following LESS:
#secondary-nav{
.span4;
// More styling (padding, etc) if needed
}
#main-content{
.span8;
}
This creates fully decoupled HTML and Stylesheet, which is ideal, because the HTML is cleaner and more readable, and redesigns can be made with less HTML modification. However this only works if you use LESS or some other CSS pre-processor, because CSS currently does not support mixins (AFAIK).
We already use LESS in my workplace, so I know I'll be pushing towards using this type of solution. I'm a very strong believer in semantic HTML and data-design decoupling. :)
Basically DIVs are DIVs & Table elements are simply table elements. The problem with tables is often just keeping track of all of the columns & the rows because it is ultimately a strict data construct. DIVs are far more flexible & forgiving.
For example, if you wanted to to take the four DIVs with the class that equals "span4" and just change them to a 2 column width, all you would need to do is adjust a wee bit of CSS for the outer class "row" and maybe the class "span4". In fact when doing DIVs like this I would avoid calling individual DIVs "span4" or some other number.
My approach would be to create a parent wrapper DIV that is called "rowspan" and the inner DIVs would have some generic ID like maybe "cell".
<div class="rowspan">
<div class="cell"></div>
<div class="cell"></div>
<div class="cell"></div>
<div class="cell"></div>
</div>
Each "cell" class could have a width of 100 pixels for example, and then the parent "rowspan" could be 400 pixels. That would equate to 4 columns in a row. Want to make it 2 columns? No problem! Just change "rowspan" to be 200 pixels wide. At this point it is all in CSS so it's easy to do without rejiggering page structure in the DOM.
But with tables? Not easy. You would have to basically re-render the table with </tr><tr> tags to create new rows.
Version with table, tr, td depends on browser algorithms - wrapping, dynamic width, margins, centering etc.
Version with div can be more easily tuned by css and scripts.