I want a div to be position: fixed; with a top: 125px; bottom: 125px;
The content of this div is dynamic, so the sum height of the children of this popup is not always taking up the entire div's height, meaning the parent is showing at the bottom of the children. What would be the way around this? Would I have to use margin instead of top and bottom?
You don't need bottom here, just set the top and let the height expand naturally to fit the children. If you don't want the parent to ever be less than a specific height then use min-height to set that.
Hard to say without seeing your complete layout, but maybe probably just omitting the bottom css would be enough.
If you don't specify a size restriction a div should, by default, dynamically grow and shrink to fit the contents of it's children. In this case you are forcing it to a certain size by setting an absolute position for both top and bottom, thereby creating a fixed height.
Related
Having trouble getting the black bar at the bottom of the slider to stretch full-width on the screen. It works on the left, but the right side is cut off at the container edge. Using Master Slider if that's relative info. Any tips on how I can get that black bar to stretch all the way across?
http://designatwork.net/51fifteen/
To fix the issue
Remove tranform property from the div having class ms-slide ms-sl-selected
Remove width property from the div having class ms-layer. As div is absolutely positioned, set left and right values to 0 to make it full width
Remove max-width and left from div with class ms-slide-layers also
Although I feel, structure is not proper, having relative positions within absolute creates problems. Still above fix can save you from re-write.
A few classes like ms-slide-layers, ms-inner-controls-cont and ms-layer have hardcoded values for left, width and, most limiting in this case, max-width.
I think this case would benefit from using the viewport width unit, vw by setting width: 100vw; you're telling it to be the width of the entire viewport.
Also, you don't need the padding and margin in 9999px. You can position: absolute the layer, have bottom: 0 and then use reasonable padding and align the text according to your needs to get a better, cleaner result.
First set a position (anything other than static) to its parent element. Then set the black bar's position to absolute. This way, it will be relative to its nearest parent element that contains a position. Next, stretch it out by either using height and width properties, or use directional positions (top, bottom, left, right). If youll use directional positions then use both left and right simultaneously and the black bar will expand across the screen.
I have a div, .instagram_grid which has margin-left and margin-right set to auto, is relatively positioned, and has a width which for browse sizes 900px >makes the div be centered nicely in the page.
when I have the simple structure in the context of the rest of the CSS for a single page, the no longer becomes centered at browser width >1684px. In the Fiddle that follows I only have two lines that modify the div as a whole (and one just sets the background to pink). There are no media queries present, which suggests that it is the effect of some unseen preceding div/element causing the behavior.
https://jsfiddle.net/ebbnormal/m561tpnL/6/
The behaviour is what is expected with that markup.
The element is centered, but then you use relative positioning to show it 500px to the right of where it actually would be.
The .calc-text div above the .instagram_grid div causes its parent to overflow by setting margin-left:auto while simultaneously setting left: to a negative value, which isn't valid CSS.
If I have a div with height:100% & width:100%, it's background color will be up to the browser's height and width primarily. But if the content inside that div grows dynamically, then, the div will not expand according to the content, text will be overlapped and flows over that div.
On the other hand, if I set min-height and min-width to 100%, then if the content length is smaller than browser's window, background-color will not stretched to browser's height and width.
html, body{
height: 100%;
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
}
#container{
height: 100%;
width: 100%;
background-color: red;
}
How to make such div which background-color will cover up browser's window size primarily but if the content grows dynamically, it will be able to expand with content at the same time.
Regards.
I still don't know what you are actually trying to achieve. Going by your fiddle sample, it would have been much easier to just use a solid border around the inner diver to get a red surrounding (instead of another div with background color and padding). But if you just don't want that the text oveflows the div, you have to allow the div to resize:
http://jsfiddle.net/JQ7fr/1/
Update
I think see your problem now. What you are trying to do is not possible the way you are trying to do it. You are falling for a fundamental misconception of the CSS Box Model. The min-height of a box always refers to the height of its parent. If the height of the parent is not set, the height is auto by default, which means the height is calculated by the browser to be as big as necessary for the content of the box to fit. It is also calculated that way if you set a min-height!
Assume you give body a height of 100%, the body is as high as your browser window. If give your outer div a min-height of 100%, it will also be as high as your browser window, but since you set no height (setting min-height does NOT affect the height property!), the height of this box is auto. So in fact, the real height (CSS standard calls this the "tentative height") is only as big as the content of your outer div (not necessarily 100%), yet since min-height says it must be 100% it will render with a height of 100%, regardless what its real height is. If you now set min-height of your inner div to 100%, those 100% mean "100% of the height of my parent box height" and the parent box height is auto, it is NOT 100%! That's why the inner div does not fill the whole screen then.
Of course you can give your outer div a height of 100%, in that case setting the min-height of your inner div to 100% will make it fill the whole screen, but now the outer div is really just 100% in height, it will not expand beyond 100% (it has a FIXED HEIGHT), not even if the inner div is bigger than that, that's why red color will not expand beyond the screen height, even if the yellow color goes beyond the screen height.
Either your outer div has a fixed height, in which case the height will be fixed (that's the whole point of a fixed height, isn't it?) or it has a flexible height, but if it has a flexible height, it will never be "higher" than required for its content (the inner div) and thus using 100% at the inner div, whether you set min-height or height doesn't matter, always refers to 100% of the outer div height and that one will be as big as required for the inner div. I hope you were able to understand what I'm saying here.
You can surely get outer div to behave the way you want (always fill at least 100% of the screen, but expand beyond that if the content requires it) by just setting it's min-height to 100%, since here min-height will refer to the body height and your body has a fixed height, but the inner div will never behave that way. Well, it can behave that way, if your outer div has a fixed width, but then the outer div will not expand, not even if the inner div would require it, instead the inner div will overflow beyond the bounds of the outer one.
I'm pretty sure it is no problem to some create a web page that will look exactly the way you want it to look, but the problem is, we (or I) don't know what it is supposed to look. I doubt you want an ugly yellow page with a red and blue border around it, do you? Yet so far this is the only page we have seen from you. I don't know what kind of color effect you are trying to achieve, whether you are using images (or if you should be using images) or how the page will really look like in the end.
I can't understand your question very clearly, I think you should set a correct overflow property to your div,
try giving it overflow: auto; or any other suitable one
The CSS Overflow Property
I have a dojox chart (chartDiv) that gets created within another container div (panelContainer).
Even though I have the width and height of the chartDiv set to be 90%, it either introduces scroll bars into the chartDiv, or if I dtart altering the padding and margin settigns for the ChartDiv, it will spill outside of the parent container.
I know this is going to be a basic issue, but I have been playing with lots of different CSS settings but nothing seems to solve keeping the chartDiv within the confines of the panelContainer (taking up 95% of the space)
This fiddle might help you spot where I have gone wrong.
When you make a chart (or a dojox.gfx canvas) without width/height, it will try its best to determine its dimensions from the container you put it in. It can get confused though!
In your fiddle's case, #chart has a known width, because it's a block element and inherits its width from panelBG which is 100% of panelContainer's width.
The #chart div doesn't really have a height though, since a block element is 0px tall until you put something in it (or add some style to it). As a consequence, (I think) the chart simply assumes a height of some proportion to the width.
In your CSS, I see you have a #chartDiv rule with width and height 90%. I'm guessing you intended that to be #chart. That wouldn't actually have resolved the problem entirely though!
Assuming you changed that, the chart would now use 90%x90% as width/height, but if you try it, you'll see that the labels/axis are still positioned incorrectly.
Because you've floated the title container to the left, the chart container starts on the same "line" and tries to have its content "float" around the title container. This skews the axis labels out of place (green), while the actual chart (svg/canvas, pink) drops down below the title container.
To fix this, tell the chart container to stay clear of floats on both sides:
#chart {
width: 90%;
height: 90%;
clear: both;
}
It isn't really necessary to float anything though, and setting the height to 90% isn't always ideal. I made a suggestion in an updated fiddle: http://fiddle.jshell.net/froden/WsrHs/4/ .
The differences are just that the title container is a div spanning across the top, while the chart container is absolutely positioned so that it fills whatever space is left underneath. You can then just set width/height on panelContainer.
Absolutely positioned elements are taken out of the normal flow. This is why some of the elements are expanding beyond their containers. I have a feeling your floats are involved in that, too, but the fiddle is a little too complicated and a simpler version needs to be made.
I have overflow-x:hidden placed on the body tag of my page so that any content extending beyond the window will not be visible. No scroll bars show up, however, I can still scroll to the left / right to see the content (kinda defeats the purpose of overflow-x).
-ms-overflow-x: doesn't fix the problem either.
There is a wrapper 900px;
Inside the wrapper, there is a div inside:
width:100%;
padding-right:300px;
position:absolute;
left:200px;
I would like the inner div to hang over the right side of the window without causing it to scroll (and leaving a 200px space the its left).
Any help? Thanks!
Since the width of the div is 100%, there should never be an overflow, since the div will always fit 100% of the viewport (assuming you haven't changed the size of your body tag).
As for the padding, the padding is added on after the width, so you're saying the div is 100% of the width of it's container (the body tag), and the padding is an additional 300px to the right, which will be invisible as it's out of the viewport.
You might want to try giving the div an explicit size width and experiment that way.
It may help to see an example of your markup as well, to get an idea of what you're trying to achieve.
More HTML/CSS would be useful, but given what you have right now, my first thought is that your wrapper is still set to position: static (the default for HTML elements).
If you add position: relative to your wrapper, it will contain the absolutely-positioned element within it, and should constrain it to the overflow restrictions.
Additionally, you may want to look into the box-sizing property and how the W3C box model works. In short, your padding is adding to the width of the element, so it's actually (100% + 300px), which results in a size that is larger than the container.
If you don't want to mess with box-sizing, you can also add max-width: 100% to your absolute div to force it to not grow out of its container.