I use a lot of absolute elements in my website design so that it will mold to whatever browser dimensions are being used, but there is a minimum size that I want to use. In other words, I want my website to become compact as the browser is being resized smaller but at a certain point I want the overflow:auto attribute to kick in and force the user to see the whole page using scrolling instead of compacting the page further.
Any ideas? I tried putting in an empty table with specific dimensions into an element with overflow:auto, but that didn't work. I am not a terribly experienced web-designer.
CSS
html, body {
min-width: 980px;
}
Related
Well this is an odd behaviour.
I'm coding the frontend of a metrics app that must be viewed in a large tv.
I use Html, Js and Css (bootstrap 4).
It's for general public so we must hide browser tabs, etc..
Whenever I set the browser to go fullscreen, a big white row appears at the bottom of the page. Please see attached picture.
The odd part is that there isn't any element there. It's like the viewport just gets bigger and forgets to cover the bottom with stuff.
Is this a known issue?
How to avoid this and cover on fullscreen?
I'ver tried auto, cover, 100% height, etc..
I found the solution right after posting my question.
html,body
{
min-height:100%;
}
The thing is that if you apply height only to body, it will seek for the parent (html) and found that the size is the same as before so both must have the property in order to get the 100% of the height.
I want a page with a fixed pixel size to always have the same percantage hight. I cant just use % or any other relative units since I already made the whole site in pixels.
Means when I have a div with a hight of 1500px and view it on a 1366x768 screen the whole 1500px div should still be visable completely.
The effect I want to accomplish is something similar to a browser zoom.
You could try min-height: 1500px; on the div, then put overflow-y: auto on the body or html elements.
If you want something to dynamically resize depending on the window height you'll want to look into either CSS flexbox, using the vh sizing, or using javascript to detect window resizing.
You could use the viewport meta tag for that. Just remove the "initial-scale=1" part and the page should always be rendered to fit the screen.
You should note that this might result in the page being shown very small which can lead to problems when people want to access it with a smartphone for example. If you want to optimize your page for different devices and screens, I suggest you make yourself familiar with responsive webdesign.
Something like height: 100vh; would make the object's height 100 percent of the viewport height. It seems like there is no way around switching from px to something else.
I recall it was long ago best practice to hardcode width and height for any image (generally so it allocated appropriate amount of space while loading), but now with most people on high speed and things generally more dynamic, what is the best practice for this? Is it still preferred that any content image have inline size set with html?
It doesn't matter if you set the size using HTML attributes or in a stylesheet, but you should still specify the size for images.
Eventhough images are loaded a lot faster nowadays, there is still a noticable delay between the page being displayed and the images pop up. It's still irritating when the layout of a page changes while the images are loading.
Yes, it is still preferred.
Plenty of people are not on high speed connections, and mobile is becoming more common.
It doesn't have to be inline - you can do it in external CSS. Some older browsers, if you don't specify the size, will just treat it as 0px;
Its always best to use CSS
You could hardcode the image height and width like this
.myimg img {
width: 10px;
height: 10px;
}
your image file itself should be the size you want it to display as, for the most part, if your concerned about slow loading especially! if you've got a 500X800 px image, that you only want to show as 100X200, scale it down! the file size will be much smaller so it will load faster :)
I would say yes if you want to make sure the white space is included in case of the image does not load or during document load. But no if you're scaling/resizing the image with those attributes, as its unnecessary load on the browser and causes image distortion.
If you are designing for cross browser compatibility, then you should at the very least specify the height and width in your CSS for the image itself. I have found inconsistency between FireFox, IE, Opera, etc if sizes are not specified specifically for the image. Due to the fact that each browser, not to mention different versions, handle adherence to HTML Standards differently. I have found that some browsers will do its best to extrapolate the HTML designers intent, while others just croak on the first error. I would also recommend em sizes, rather than pixel or %'s if you intend for the website to be viewed from a mobile device such as a tablet. I will say, however I have just started playing with HTML5 so I don't of the difference in HTML5 with respect to images.
I just answered a similar question on Wordpress Stack Exchange and also on Webmaster Stack. I am posting it here intending to clarify and help more people. (admins/moderators: if this isn't allowed, let me know the proper way to help).
doesn't really means you need to specify width and height in the html. What it means is that is you gotta reserve te proper space and when the image is loaded, the browser doens't have to reflow and repaint the page.
Besides, if you hardcode the dimensions, it kinds of defeats responsive behaviour. If your layout is not responsive, it's ok, but if you want to keep some responsiveness, you could use only CSS to achieve the results.
Most of time, using both width and max-width:100 will do the work, but this post from Smashing Magazine has an interesting technique: instead of using max-width:100%, you can use The Padding-Bottom Hack :
"With the technique, we define the height as a measure relative to the width. Padding and margin have such intrinsic properties, and we can use them to create aspect ratios for elements that do not have any content in them.
Because padding has this capability, we can set padding-bottom to be relative to the width of an element. If we also set height to be 0, we’ll get what we want. [...]
The next step is to place an image inside the container and make sure it fills up the container. To do this, we need to position the image absolutely inside the container, like so:"
.img-container {
padding-bottom: 56.25%; /* 16:9 ratio */
height: 0;
background-color: black;
}
.img-container img {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
}
I want to display a collection of image thumbnails in a grid. The images will come in a variety of sizes, but I'd like to restrict the thumbnails to a particular size (let's say 200px wide and 150px tall).
What I'd like to find are some magical HTML markup and CSS rules that will
Allow the images to be included in normal <img> elements
Ensure that the thumbnails fit into their 200x150 pixel box, retain their proportions, and are centered in whichever dimension they overflow.
Not require JavaScript or specific knowledge of each image's actual dimensions
I'm not sure if this is possible. I can make a (bad) approximation of what I want with the following markup:
<div class="thumb">
<img src="360x450.jpeg">
</div>
and CSS:
.thumb {
width: 200px;
height: 150px;
overflow: hidden;
}
.thumb img {
min-width: 200px;
min-height: 150px;
width: 200px;
}
This attempt breaks in a variety of ways:
Images that are in portrait orientation will be sized correctly, but will overflow through the bottom of the container, resulting in vertically-off-center cropping.
Images that are wide and short will be distorted in the horizontal dimension because of the hard-coded width and min-height rules.
But without that hard-coded width, images that are larger than the minimum height and width will not be resized at all.
If it's at all helpful, I've put up an example that will (hopefully) illustrate what I'm trying to do, here:
http://overloaded.org/tmp/imgtest/
http://overloaded.org/tmp/imgtest/imgtest.zip
I know that I can solve this problem by omitting the <img> element altogether and instead pulling the thumbnails in as a centered background image on the containing element, but, if it's possible, I'd like to keep the <img> elements in the page.
Thanks for any help or pointers you can provide!
Edit: I suppose I should note that an ideal solution will work in IE 6+ and modern browsers, but any solution that works in IE 9+ and other modern browsers (recent WebKit, Gecko, etc.) will be gladly accepted.
You can (kind of) achieve this with the CSS3 background-size additions: contain and cover.
Live Demo
contain (top picture) fits the entire image, keeping aspect ratio. Nothing is cropped.
cover (bottom picture) fills the containing element either vertically or horizontally (depending on the image) and crops the rest.
Possible, probably.
Also, probably not the best idea. Your big issue to overcome here is orientation of thumbnails. What if you're dealing with a panorama? Certainly, shrinking it down is going to create a very unsightly "squished" image, as would a very tall image. It's rare that everyone deals in 4X3 or 16X9 100% of the time. So, you'll need a mechanism to pad out the image. Even if the ratio is correct, it's not going to resize as cleanly as you could with a program like Photoshop or Gimp.
The other major issue in this thought process is that you're going to be sending massive amounts of unnecessary data to the server via the larger images. It'll take longer to load, fill up the DOM unnecessarily, and overall just inhibit the UI experience.
There are a number of ways to get around this, none of them pure CSS. I've tackled this several times, each in a unique way based on the client. For one client that wanted things totally custom, it was a custom uploader, resizing via iMagick (part of image magic) and custom CSS/Javascript for the album with major interactivity. In another instance, I use Gallery as the backend--handling the thumbnail creation, uploading, titling, cropping, and organizing-- and then just pulled the reformatted image links out of the DB to display them in a more appealing manner. You could save yourself even more trouble and just use something like the Flickr api to pull images for your use.
Here's a tut on using ImageMagick to do thumbnails.
.thumb img {
max-width: 200px;
max-height: 150px;
min-width: 200px;
min-height: 150px;
}
Well I know for thumbs you would want it max and min if you want a smaller image to make it bigger and bigger image to make it smaller.
try to set max-width and height and not min because if the image is not exactly that size it will overflow :)
I just finished reading YSlow recommendation to always define the image dimensions (height/width) to improve HTML rendering performance.
However, I don't know the image dimension I'm linking too.
What I do know is that the height will never be larger than 200px and the width will never be larger than 300px
Would I be a benefit if I defined (CSS) :
img {max-height: 200px; max-width: 300px}
For HTML performance rendering?
No, setting the max-width and max-height doesn't improve the performance.
The reason for specifying the width and height of images is that the browser will know exactly how much space the image will take up. If you leave the image size unspecified, the browser has to reflow the layout when the image loads.
You can see this nasty effect on some pages, where the page is first loaded with no placeholders for images, and then the contents jumps around making place for the images as they load.
If you can't specify the size of some images, don't worry too much about it. Just make sure that the layout behaves nicely when the images load, and don't jump around too much.
Setting the max height and width of an image in the css will make the img tag resize the img based on the contraints but if you are using a backend scripting language like asp.net or php you an use their img libraries to scale the image on the server side an either save then to the hard drive to use later or resize on the fly.
You can check out http://shiftingpixel.com/2008/03/03/smart-image-resizer/ for php as a starter
Or if you are using .NET you can check out this link http://weblogs.asp.net/gunnarpeipman/archive/2009/04/02/resizing-images-without-loss-of-quality.aspx
Images with different proportions would not look good, since they would be scaled. I would not recommend this.
In this case I would definitely not set the height and width of the image since you don't know what it is going to be. If you know what the size is going to be then setting is good because it will cut down on the amount of repainting and reflow that the browser has to do when rendering a page.
The less it has to do then the better the performance will be on the client side because you are not making the browser work too hard.
Stoyan Stefanov explained it really well in a recent blog post
I think You'd rather want to wrap that <img> into a <span> or <div> element with max-height and max-width set. Also, it ( span or div ) should have overflow:hidden set so the image doesn't go out of the div's range.
It definitelly isn't recommended to set these setting directly to image because You'll get different and slower rendering in different browsers.