I'm working on a site that was developed by another person. This site is designed with wordpress by override a base theme(blankslate). This is the link:
http://www.good-look.it
There is a problem. When you resize the browser window you can see that the div with white background is responsive, but its not. On mobile the problem is more visible. I can't find a solution. Maybe is a problem with the plugin that manage the image slides(NextGEN Gallery by Photocrati)?
The problem is in this file: http://www.good-look.it/wp-content/themes/blankslate/css/struttura.css
There are numerous CSS styles with "!important" on them. For example:
wrapper {
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
text-align: center;
vertical-align: top;
width: 940px !important;
}
The width of this container will always be 940px with the way you have it now. Turning this style off in Firebug "fixed" the "Brands" section. There are numerous problems in the CSS though that will affect responsive behavior.
First off, I thing we should be clear that the site is made with html, css, php, js etc --- so WordPress is really pretty irrelevant.
Most of the site isn't really planned in a way that is going to be responsive, but the specific problem of the white div, is that it is responsive, but the slider within - is not responsive, and uses absolute positioning --- so it's position is falling out of the parent div, and then making the content wider than the white div, and therefor wider than the window itself.
Did some quick styles in the inspector --- the slider's actually sorta "responsive."
replace
.wrapper {
width: 960px !important;
...
with
.wrapper {
width: 100%;
max-width: 940px;
...
and it will get you a little closer...
while designing a responsive site make sure that while defining width use %age instead of pixels like(940px). bcoz it arranges your div in %age according to your current device size but while defining width:940px it will take that amount of width irrespective of your screen size...
Related
I have This site
It looks okay in normal browser from PC.
But whenever I switch to mobile view from inspect, it looks like this
http://azlily.bex.jp/eccube_1/html/
2: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uSHAe.png
Should I implement Media screen indivisually for all components in website? If Yes, then Why is title and some components are fit in mobile view.
You dont need to implement media screen for every item present. the trick is to make it responsive from the ground up, and then just make small alterations to the layout as it shrinks down if still needed. For example, take this news_area div section. You have it positioned in the center of its parent container - news_contents. But dont use fixed margins to center it, you want add css so that it stays in the center even when it shrinks down.
example:
.news_contents {
width: 100%;
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
}
#news_area {
width: 90%;
background: #d9d9d9;
margin: 30px auto!important;
}
[note:the !important tag is only needed here to override some of your existing css. Also this is just a rough example to show you the layout.]
With this added to your css, the news_area will always be centered in its parent div, and always have space either side. This is what i mean by coding it with a responsive design from the start. This section now doesn't need media screen to alter it again as it works on all device sizes with its original css.
Currently working on a landing screen where users choose a colour theme on the site. There are two coloured sides that 'grow' on hover giving the effect of colouring the website seen on a mockup infront. (Check out the Codepen below to get what i mean, it's kinda hard to explain fully)
Demo: http://codepen.io/BAWKdesign/pen/PPvRjz/
To 'color' the mockup two images are used placed over one other.
It needs to be responsive so I've given the back image width: 100%; height: auto; which is also used to dictate the size of the parent div.
The top image is set to width: auto; height: 100%; as using width 100% causes the image to stretch and not clip.
The problem is, the overlaid image appears larger in size as you can see in the link below giving a cut up image effect. Perhaps there are differences in how the size is calculated when you swap 100% and Auto around?
Hopefully this is just me having a brain fart and I've made a rookie mistake somewhere!
Images are by default inline elements meaning they naturally have some spacing around them. You are setting your other images to position: absolute which causes them to display similar to a block element - ie. no default spacing.
Simple solution is to add display: block to your image element:
.img {
display: block;
}
Updated CodePen
I am currently working on making http://preview.j64e7zzvo82p4x6r4fdjze6piimmfgviwsruf9j89pidaemi.box.codeanywhere.com/ responsive and for some reason there are images that are too big that cause the width of the body to be larger than the viewport.
The problem starts as soon as the screen is sized down to anything below 991px.
If I load the page with no images then it is fine but I am currently hiding the images by using (display:none;) when the screen is sized for mobile devices. So I don't understand why it is still happening.
Any idea?
For images to be responsive in bootstrap, you need to add the class "img-responsive" to them. then they will fit nicely.
The thing is that the image is 900px wide, to avoid that you need to set a % width to the image, eg:
.online-store-image img{
max-width:100%;
height: auto;
display: block;
}
Or if you want to hide the rest of the image and maintain the same size, you can set:
.online-store-image{
overflow: hidden;
}
In this case you're using Bootrstrap, so you may want to add the img-responsive class to your images, so they can adapt to the container.
Images in Bootstrap 3 can be made responsive-friendly via the addition
of the .img-responsive class. This applies max-width: 100%;, height:auto; and display: block; to the image so that it scales nicely to the parent element.
I want to create a new website with Bootstrap and I need it to be 100% in width, but I do not want it to be fluid. At least not for now.
The issue I have is: using bootstrap standard limits you to 960px and with a fluid layout it is full width but behaves like a fluid layout should by moving elements to become stacked when the window is shrunk in size.
Is there a way to have 100% width with a static bootstrap layout?
This is easy to achieve in Bootstrap 3, just replace the .container div with your own:
.my-fluid-container {
padding-left: 15px;
padding-right: 15px;
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
}
Thanks to Erik Flowers for the heads-up:
http://www.helloerik.com/bootstrap-3-grid-introduction#fluid
UPDATE
Bootstrap 3 now offers a built-in fluid container class, just use <div class="container-fluid">. See docs.
100% width ... static
This is a bit of an oxymoron. A 100% width layout isn't static.
Bootstrap uses a .container class to set a predefined width. Increase this to your desired page width if you want it to be greater than it's default. Be careful though that the sizing of Bootstrap's span* and offset* classes will need their widths adjusted accordingly.
Just don't include the bootstrap-responsive.css in order to disable the responsive function.
If you don't want a .container gutter/margin you can put your content outside the container but keep in mind you must maintain your content layout by yourself(still can use grid but lost an ability to centering your content) and don't forget most of the Bootstrap component like .navbar need .container to control its width.
One of my work need a full screen carousel to holding all contents so I wrap my content with .container to center the content.
I can't quite figure out how to reply to the main question, but here's what you want OP
As said above, don't use .container, use your own class like:
.my-fluid-container {
padding-left: 15px;
padding-right: 15px;
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
}
Then when you build your grid, just use col-xs-* for the columns. You will now have a 100% width site that doesn't stack in the "mobile" view. Welcome to the 90's ;)
I guess what you mean is you don't want margin/padding on the sides. (that's the only way your message makes sense - a 100% width will take the full size of the screen so it will never be static - the size will change depending on how big the window is)
We don't have a use-case or JSFiddle from you so I can't give you exact code but you need to make sure your body has margin:0 and padding:0 and then look for the other divs with Firebug or Chrome Web Dev tools.
If you want your layout to be fluid but stop at a certain point growing, then you need to apply max-width:1000px (for example) to your body or your general container/wrapper element.
Today I came across a very nasty problem, I need to make the front-end layout for a website and it has a certain design element on the page that puzzled (even) me.
Now I am not exactly unfamiliar with html, css positioning, making layouts etc, so please don't make 'guesses' as to how I could solve it. I want a working example.
Here is a jsfiddle with my code and problem:
http://jsfiddle.net/sg3s/A9vzA/ http://jsfiddle.net/sg3s/A9vzA/15/
What is currently happening;
The #container has a min-height of 100% (red background) width of 970px. This is the width the page must have as a minimum. The #top (lightbrown background) div is irrelevant for the problem but part of the design.
The problem lies in #header (purple background) which currently has a width of 1022px (too wide for 1024px resolution + a scrollbar, even with a maximized window) and a negative left margin to keep it centered on the container, which is what needs to happen. When the width of the screen width falls below 1022px a horizontal scrollbar apears as the thinnest element on the page is 1022px wide. (its behaviour is the same with position absolute and a negative left offset)
What I want to have happening;
I want the 'overflow' of #header over #container to dissapear into the sides and only get a scroll bar as the viewport gets below 970px wide. (If someone can rephrase this )
Let me be a little bit clearer on this:
The 100% height layout needs to stay and be compatible with IE7+
The header needs to be centered over the container, this is the reason it is inside it in my example but be my guest to take it out if that solves the problem.
My example looks and acts correct as long as the viewport is large enough to accomedate the header.
The trick is to make it look and act the same while the sides of header overflow into the sides of the viewport when the viewport is too slim to fit that header.
Updated the example to make the change / centring a bit more obvious.
If possible I want the layout to support all the way down to IE6 though IE7+ will be fine. The final page will prompt to install Chrome Frame anyway. And ofcourse don't forget about Chrome, FF 3.5+.. (Opera?). Use of JS will not be acceptable, unless you can convince me that there is absolutely no other way, but jQuery will be present on the page.
Thank you for at least trying! (Challenge yourself! :D)
This code worked for me in FF/Chrome/Safari/Opera. Can't test in IE because I'm on Mac now, but must work in IE 7+
Example: http://jsfiddle.net/XVraD/3/
Base idea is to wrap #header in another container with "width: 100%; min-width: 970px;" and place in outside of #container, so it will do all the overflow to you.
EDIT 2: Solution that works in IE6: http://jsfiddle.net/XVraD/9/
EDIT 3: This version is fixed to have height 100% in modern browsers and old IE's: http://jsfiddle.net/XVraD/9/
It is a hard one, the only real solution I can come up with is this that you use Media queries like this:
#media all and (min-width: 970px) {
body, html {
overflow-x: hidden;
}
}
It is not supported by old browsers, there you would need a Javascript!
As far as I can tell, the best solution would be to restructure your HTML to put your header outside of the container.
<div class="outer">
<div class="header">
...
</div>
<div class="container">
...
</div>
</div>
CSS:
.outer { ... }
.header {
max-width: 1022px;
min-width: 970px;
margin: 0 auto; }
.container {
width: 970px;
margin: 0 auto; }
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/Wexcode/tJXHF/
http://jsfiddle.net/QrVJJ/
#header is positioned outside and above (with z-index) #top. It also gets margin: 0 auto; and the background is positioned top center with min-width:970px and max-width:1022px.
#header {
margin: 0 auto;
z-index:5;
min-width: 970px;
max-width: 1022px;
height: 201px;
background: #390419;
overflow:hidden;
background: transparent url(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rScBRKlTdoE/TC6rNWAyD9I/AAAAAAABOTo/BWkJH9ymovo/s1600/IMG_9692.jpg) no-repeat top center;
}
How about setting the header to have a min-width of 970px and a max-width of 1022px? There are ie hacks to make min and max width work. This would make make scrollbars appear after the viewport shrinks to below 970 and as you stretch the viewport the header would grow up until 1022 after which it would stay 1022.
Having this one in Chrome.
http://jsfiddle.net/A9vzA/10/
Put an inner div inside the #header
The header has position relative and no float and with 970px
The inner div has position fixed and width 1022px and margin 0 -26px
--edit
but doesnot work in IE7
--edit
this works in IE7, too http://jsfiddle.net/A9vzA/11/ just add another inner div
The first inner div is position fixed and width 100% and text-align center
The second inner div is margin 0 auto and width 1022px
Can anyone test it in IE6
--edit
nope doesnot work if you got content in your #container. position fixed is no option
Is this what you're after:
http://jsfiddle.net/HbxTQ/8/
Fullscreen:
http://jsfiddle.net/HbxTQ/8/embedded/result/
(I've not yet made it cross-browser, only tested it in Chrome. What to ensure I have the idea right first.)
sg3s, you sound like a tough customer but I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring. None of us understands exactly what you need so please post the flattened design.
My assumption is that you need one or two layers with adjustable width behind a fixed 960px content container. Using float on adjustable width containers is going to make it nearly impossible to do what you want. Instead, use postion: absolute for a container holder (a.k.a. wrapper) and position: relative for the inner content containers. No Javascript is necessary.
My recommendation is removing #header from the primary #content container and separating the background image from the #header so they can be rendered and positioned independently.
http://jsfiddle.net/dylanvalade/ZcejP/