I'm having trouble with the order of layered DIV elements. I have a DIV .lens-flare that's at the bottom of the hierarchy in HTML. Yet when I transform: translate the position so it encompasses the entire parent DIV, it shows above elements that are above it in the hierarchy.
So I tried setting z-indexes, and then turned my translate into translate3d. Still I'm not able to get .lens-flare underneath .top-nav-bar, .nav-bar, or .cta.
Currently I have a pointer-events: none applied so I can at least click on the things underneath. But how can i actually move the .lens-flare layer under everything else successfully?
Here's my CodePen for the project
Elements rendered later are considered being closer to the screen than the elements rendered before them.
Z-index is the answer if you want to change this, you just need to remember z-index works only with elements that are positioned.
.lens-flare
position: relative
z-index: 1
.nav-bar, .top-nav-bar, .cta
position: relative
z-index: 2
Your corrected codepen: http://codepen.io/sEvher/pen/doyWoW
Related
I have an absolutely positioned flyout table, that is hidden (display:none;) by default,
and appears (display:block;) on hovering over its heading.
It appears above everything else on the page, which is what I want.
The exception are elements with an opacity value below 1.
They appear above the hover table.
Why is that, and how could I avoid it?
JSFiddle
This is working "as it should", but to get your desired result, use z-index: 1 on your position: absolute element.
I did some more digging into this because I was curious as to why it was happening. There are two important things:
elements with position: absolute and a z-index: auto stay in the same stacking context.
an element with an opacity less than 1 creates a new stacking context.
I found this answer helpful as it goes into more depth about why this happens.
You can easily avoid it by adding z-index: 1; to table.hidden
I'm building a demo for an app I want to create and I am trying to create buttons on a mobile phone. I brought in an image of a phone and created buttons set to absolute positioning which allows me to layer them over the phone, but when I go to resize the page, the element moves a lot and does not stay in the same place on the phone. How can I fix this? Please see fiddle to see exactly what I mean: http://jsfiddle.net/x313vkup/
I would really appreciate a modification of my fiddle link so I can understand how this works.
This is a snippet of the code that shows the list set to absolute positioning:
#phone_view {
position: absolute;
margin-top: -65%;
margin-left: 15%;
}
The beauty of position:absolute is that you can accomplish a lot without setting margins -- you can go straight to using top, left, etc.
An absolutely-positioned element needs to be positioned relative to a wrapper, however. I would recommend setting your #phone element to position: relative and then setting the position and dimensions of #phone_view "manually" in the CSS.
I would also recommend creating another wrapper element inside of phone to act as the relatively positioned element, since your h4 can wrap onto a second line, drive down the phone image, and get it out of sync with the absolute positioning.
EDIT: link to JSFiddle. Note the relatively-positioned wrapper (.phone-wrap). Child elements with position: absolute will define their position based on this wrapper. Also, no need for margins on #phone_view.
Also, re: #phone_view, background-color is just to make it visible for the demo, and while overflow: auto seemed appropriate for the demo, it doesn't affect the positioning of the object itself.
Often I find myself attaching a class to an element just to give it position: relative; so that I can position it's children using position: absolute;
Would there by anything wrong, or should I say, would anything break if I was to write:
* {
position: relative;
}
or perhaps the below example, as these are usually the only elements I require the relative positioning on:
div, navbar, footer, section, aside, header, article {
position: relative;
}
According to W3schools, all elements are position: static; by default which is positioned according to the normal flow of the page.
"HTML elements are positioned static by default. A static positioned
element is always positioned according to the normal flow of the
page."
and according to the same source, relatively positioned elements also position according to the normal flow of the page unless overridden with CSS:
"The content of relatively positioned elements can be moved and overlap
other elements, but the reserved space for the element is still
preserved in the normal flow."
Yes, it is. If you try to position one element absolute it is positioned relatively to the closest ancestor, which has a CSS position other than static.
If every element has position:relative, this would be the direct parent.
But you might want to position the absolute element relatively to an element further up in the DOM tree or maybe absolutely on the page body.
At some point you will have the situation where you are not in full control of the HTML. Then you will see, that it is counterproductive to set everything relative.
An example might be a phat layer menu. You have the layer inside a .menu class somewhere deep in the jungle of hierarchical ul li elements. This should be positioned relative to the .menu element's position. You might not want to change the DOM tree here.
If you apply position: relative to all elements in the page, you won't be able to use position: absolute efficiently, because you can't position an element to the grandparent and you will probably break in a unpredictable way external plugins/modules that rely on position: absolute.
You may encounter problems with z-index (for example in dropdowns menu), and you'll end up overwriting this behaviour with position: static and position: absolute.
As for me using position:relative is not good - because sometimes you need to position elemet relatively browser window and it will give a problem to you. But if you are sure that you wont doing this Go ahead
The first thing that jumps to mind and one that we saw in one of our sites recently was that any absolutely positioned elements within those relatively positioned elements will have their position offset from that element.
As an example that would be a problem if you were trying to position to the centre of the body.
Setting position:relative to all elements is a bad idea. This can affect solutions built around z-index. As per html design positioned elements will display on top of unpositioned elements. If you set position for all elements some time unexpected elements participate in z-index calculation.
What I'm trying to do is literally as the question says, float a span outside of a table, but keeping the span tag within it (for per row reuse purposes).
My understanding was that I needed to use something like overflow: visible;, but this does not seem to be having the desired effect (it's currently everywhere in the fiddle below as I was messing with testing it, but I think if it was working, I'd only need it in the inner div (the one using divStyle2)?
http://jsfiddle.net/uVQHr/
You simply need to add position: relative to the span's parent <td>.
Here's an updated Fiddle.
The problem is not to do with overflow - you were positioning the <span> outside the viewport. If you had inspected the element using your dev tools you would've seen it positioned off the left edge of the screen. You can remove all the overflow: visible properties now too.
position: absolute positions the element relative to the closest parent element with a position attribute that's something other than static (default). Your code was positioning the span relative to the <body> as no element with a position was found.
So I know there are a plethora of questions about position fixed/relative/absolute in relation with z-index, but I still couldn't figure out my question using those.
Essentially I have a header that is fixed. It works perfectly fine, everything goes behind it when scrolling down the page.
I recently wanted to add links to div ids, but in order to account for the header, I had to add the following code where link is the parent element, and then linkTo is the class of something with an ID that we actually link to. This functionality works completely, providing the correct offset so that the header is above the div we want.
.link {position: relative;}
.linkTo {position: absolute; top: -80px;}
The problem with this, is that for some reason now my div is behind everything on the page. I can still see it but the text and images are in front.
I've tried adding z-index to my header (of like 9999) but it isn't working. I don't understand why adding position relative would mess up the order of how things are displayed.
I'd like to provide an example, but my code is rather large. If this isn't enough I can try to make a jfiddle later.
Add position: relative; z-index:9999 to the parent element it will keep this element stick inside the menu.
As Ganesh said, adding position: relative to the parent element of the header was the starting step. After that adding z-index to the same parent element fixed the problem completely.
Check for a lower z-index on a parent element, it appears to override the z-index of children.
I've run into z-index issues in the past with drop down menus and jquery UI tabs. I thought it had something to do with the stacking effects created us rules like opacity or transition, but for me the problem was a parent element having a lower z-index than a child element.