I'm trying to find a way to place divs side by side without using floats or position:absolute. The divs will have a set width, and may have floated elements inside of them. This is for a CMS where the user will be able to drag content elements to organize them. They do not have to be divs, I just don't know of any other type of HTML tag that would work better.
Basically the end result is for a CMS in which the user can organize content elements by dragging them. Unfortunately with floats, if you want to do anything that involves putting divs underneath each other, everything will go down to below the tallest div above it, even if it could fit underneath something else. i.e. 3 elements, 2 of which should be stacked on the left with a third one on the right that has a height somewhere in between the two.
Inline-block is out as it isn't supported by IE (although I'd love to be a dick and just have chrome frame required...) and doesn't work for this purpose anyway.
I'm a little confused that you mention dragging elements, but your title states you do not want to use position:absolute as a solution... most scripts I am aware of use that for the dragging process, so why would you not use it for the positioning of it to place them side-by-side?
Do you have fixed number of columns ie elements horizontally arranged side by side ? If yes one thing i can think of is having those many floated unordered lists and each element will be an li
When an element is dragged and dropped inside the same ul, its index in the ul is changed. When its dragged across uls,its removed from this list and appended to the other and arranged as in case 1. Just have an idea right now... will have to try it
The only option I can think of that doesn't use the techniques you've mentioned (position:absolute, display: inline-block, and float) is to use a table.
<table>
<tr>
<td><div id="div1">...content...</div></td>
<td><div id="div2">...content...</div></td>
</tr>
</table>
It's possible that you could use:
<div id="container">
<div id="div1">...content...</div>
<div id="div2">...content...</div>
</div>
with css:
#container {display: table; } /* you might need another child div with 'display: table-row' but I can't remember off-hand */
#div1 {display: table-cell; width: 50%; /* other css */}
#div2 {display: table-cell; /* width: 50%; other css */}
This is the best I can think of, and I dislike using tables for non-tabular purposes. But to each their own. =/
Are you just looking for a way to drag/drop and organize content? Have you seen JQuery UI's "Sortable"?
http://jqueryui.com/demos/sortable/
Related
Bear with me, I will now post a dumb question. Being an amateur at web-design, I don't fully comprehend CSS. Specifically, how to arrange objects in the horizontal plane.
Right now, the dashed <'p>' box is below the empty <'div>' box. I want to put them next to each other, horizontally. How to go about it?
<html><head><style>
#div1
{width:400px; height:75px;border:4px solid;}
</style></head><body>
<div id="div1"></div>
<p style="border-style:dashed;border-width:2px;height:30px;width:396px;text-align:center;">Move me</p>
</body></html>
Don't feel bad that you haven't grasped CSS layout yet – it has been a long time coming in terms of standards support, so most methods today use slightly hacky methods to acheive it, and it's not always self-evident how they work or why.
Blocks by default stack vertically, so you want to change the flow to run horizontally for a specific part.
The proper "modern CSS way" would be to use flexbox, which is specifically a layout tool for these types of situations (and more). The caveat is browser support – IE10 and above, but otherwise most every browser supports it.
To lay something out horizontally with flexbox, you'd tell the parent to become a horizontally oriented container. In your case, it might therefore be a good idea to wrap the two elements in another element:
<div class="wrapper">
<div id="div1"></div>
<p>Move me</p>
</div>
You then tell the wrapper to become a "flex container", where the default mode is to flow boxes horizontally rather than vertically:
.wrapper {
display: flex;
}
There have historically been a couple of experimental flexbox implementations with different syntax, so that's something to be aware of too (see example later).
The next step would be to size the boxes, if you want them to be sized other than according to content – that would be the next step in learning about flexbox. :-)
The first thing you will need to know is that they will still react to the width property in this situation, and otherwise stretch to become equally tall.
If you want wider browser support, you can combine flexbox with other methods that aren't as fit for this exact purpose but still work – floats or inline block comes to mind. The nice thing about flexbox is that it ignores the display mode and float properties of its children. This means that we can combine old and new techniques.
Floats are originally intended to position images or other figures to the right or left in blocks of text, for example, but can be used to create whole layouts with a bit of work. They have some complex behaviors that take a while to grasp. For example, since floats stick out of their container vertically by default, you usually need to add something that makes the wrapper enclose the floats – the easiest way is probably to apply overflow: hidden to the wrapper.
Inline blocks are basically to allow block level elements in the flow of text, but since text flows horizontally (in English, at least) you can co-opt them to create full horizontal layouts as well. The downside is that any whitespace (including linebreaks) in the HTML source will create whitespace between the horizontal items.
If you go the float route, the example code could look something like this:
.wrapper {
/* various flexbox syntaxes, old */
display: -webkit-box;
display: -webkit-flex;
display: -ms-flexbox;
/* modern flexbox syntax */
display: flex;
overflow: hidden; /* contain floats */
}
.wrapper p,
#div1 {
float: left; /* will be ignored by modern browsers */
}
You can set display (inline, or inline-block)
An inline element does not start on a new line and only takes up as
much width as necessary.
CSS
#div1, p{
display: inline-block;
}
DEMO HERE
You should set display to inline-block for them. Check this fiddle.
Also you may set them vertical-align: top (look at fiddle again) and they'll be aligned to top.
Right now <p> a little bit below <div>. Set margin for p to 0 for change it.
Use float:left for the first div
{width:400px; float:left; height:75px;border:4px solid;}
The way I personally would do this is to add a wrapper to both of these elements and align them textually with text-align
<div id="wrapper">
<div id="div1"></div>
<p style="border-style:dashed;border-width:2px;height:30px;width:396px;text- align:center;">Move me</p>
</div>
and then add some CSS to that wrapper:
#wrapper {
text-align:center;
}
This question already has answers here:
float:left; vs display:inline; vs display:inline-block; vs display:table-cell;
(6 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
In this example I would be using 2 DIVs
<div>
<div class="element"></div>
<div class="element"></div>
</div>
With CSS
.element { float: left; }
Okay so the above is one method of displaying the blocks as inline. I recently came across another method:
<div>
<div class="element"></div>
<div class="element"></div>
</div>
.element { display: inline-block; }
Now the above also displays the blocks as inline.
Although, The First method would have another thing to worry about, i.e. When you use float, it disturbs the normal flow of the content.
So I wanted to know, Which of the above method is the best way to achieve an inline display?
And if its the second method, then does that mean I should not use the first one?
display:inline-block is the best way but keep in mind that when you are using display:inline-block, there would be some cross browser issues, the divs may display a little bit differently in various browsers such as some maybe aligned top while in other browsers it may be alignment bottom. A simple way to fix this is by setting the vertical-alignment
Benefit of using display:inline-block is that you can have your divs in the centre. If you want too of your divs to be displayed in the centre of the pages then this can be achieve by using display:inline-block and in the parent div you have to add text-align:centre. This cannot be achieved with floating and you can save those extra padding from the side which you will add to make them appear in the center.
Float:left has its benefits as well and should be used more then inline block, whenever and wherever needed
"display: inline-block;" is best method to achieve inline display accepted.
Here is a good resource that covers this topic: http://foohack.com/2007/11/cross-browser-support-for-inline-block-styling/
Basically IE has a trigger called "hasLayout". Triggering this will allow you to use display:inline-block on a block level element (by default IE only allows inline-block on native inline elements).
Additionally older version of Firefox didn't support inline-block either, but had an "inline-stack" value (moz-inline-stack).
As per my knowledge, the best way to get a cross-browser "display:inline-block"
display:-moz-inline-stack;
display:inline-block;
zoom:1;
*display:inline;
but "float:left" is also useful when you don't want blocks and you want it to align left
You can use both if you give display: inline-block,
the div will be placed next to each other,
And vice versa for a block element if we use float: left,
until we specify width it does not place next to each other.
I need a little bit of help disciplining my HTML. It seems to be acting up.
Anyway, the content area of a page I'm working on has two columns. To get the multi-column look, I'm not using one containing div for each column because some of the "rows" in the column need to be lined up.
So instead, I'm basically using several "rows" with two inline divs per row -- one for left content, one for right. Most of them are working correctly..but for some reason, my last row isn't. No matter what, it will not listen to me when I give it a width.
Here's what the relevent HTML looks like:
<div id="mainContainer">
<div id="topBar"></div> //full width
<div id="featured"> //this "row" is working fine
<div id="featuredVideos"></div> //these two
<div id="featuredLiterature"></div> //are inline
</div>
<div id="browseButtons"> //this is the "row" that is acting up
<div id="litBrowse"></div> //these two
<div id="vidBrowse"></div> //are inline
</div>
</div>
In the mean time, what types of situations can cause a div to not listen to a width? I even went so far as to give every single child div inside litbrowse and vidbrowse1 the same width that they have, 450px, and no dice. All of the content above it, which has essentially the exact same structure, is working fine. The only difference, maybe, is that the "row" above the row in question is comprised of two floating divs.
Here is a jsfiddle showing the issue. The bottom two divs (Browse lit by category, browse vids by category) should be spaced out, but they're scrunching together because they won't take their 450px width.
The problem is that you are saying that .browseBtn is inline. Inline elements don't take widths, only block level elements do.
Using inline-block instead will do what you want. It is inline enough to make the divs side by side and block enough to allow you to specify the width.
See http://jsfiddle.net/abtFr/2/
SECOND EDIT - Others have responded saying to use display: inline-block instead of display: inline. inline-block is not compatible with IE7. HOWEVER, we can make it compatible by appending
zoom:1;
*display: inline;
to the element using inline-block. To make compatible with IE6, you need to specify a height, so add
_height: [yourheight]px;
The underscore will target IE6 only.
Alternatively you can float the elements left, in which case my original reply may be relevant.
EDIT - I responded without seeing the jsFiddle; this response can probably be largely ignored.
To answer your question, floating an element will cause it to be taken out of the normal layout. If a div is floated left inside another div, it will be placed to the far left of that container, but its dimensions will not be taken into account when sizing that container div; in other words, that container will act like there are no divs inside.
To fix this you need to place another (empty) div inside the container, after the floating divs, and assign the style "clear: both" to it so that it will take the floating divs into account when being positioned. In turn, the container div will see the last cleared div and resize to take it into account.
Alternatively, sometimes you can skip adding the cleared div inside the container, and just add the style "overflow: hidden" to the container itself. This is somewhat of a hack, but a pretty robust one as far as hacks go.
Hope this solves your problem; if not we'll have to wait for more information.
It's simple, yes, you have a div, but you define its display as inline (with .browseBtn definition). So it's not a block-element anymore and it doesn't listen to width definition.
I've corrected the fiddle, although it might have other side effect.
In tables, if you have a row, that row is the same height and all cells in the row grow and shrink with dynamic content. (If one cell has a ton of text and the other cells not much they are all the same height, letting you make columns and rows).
With the popularity of div float layouts using tables is often frowned upon. However how do I duplicate this and other functionality and benefits of a table while still keeping the display set to block for the benefits of a block, cross browser?
I've seen many hacks but they always seem to be too complicated, interfere with each other, or take tweaking. I am looking for a standard reliable method for the following:
Make div boxes the same height across a row with a wrapping container
<style>
.cell { float:left; }
</style>
<div class="row">
<div class="cell">Content 1 with more width</div>
<div class="cell">Content 2<br>with<br>more<br>height<br>Content 2<br>Content 2<br></div>
<div class="cell">Content 3</div>
</div>
In this case all div's of class "cell" will have the same height, and not be fixed height at all and be floated and will stay that way for dynamic content of any size.
Vertically center content
In this case using the example above, all content would be vertically aligned to the middle, for dynamic content of any size.
Make div's of class "cell" share a common width that is based on the wrapper "row"
In a table when you specify width as 100% or fixed width the cells will automatically try to all be the same width, unless an image or block like item prohibits this. How can this be achieved with floating divs? As if you say, float all "cell" to the left, you can specify a min width or a fixed width, but I know of no way to make them share a common width that is dynamic, like a table. In floated divs by themselves they shrink to the size of the content.
How to avoid content pushing against the container/wrapper "row" and treat it as if it were just a block
For whatever reason when a floating div is inside a wrapper you can get odd behavior where content will "stick" to the wrapper as if were floating too. Even sometimes when using a <br style="clear:both"> at the end I had this happen.
If you could answer all these questions about floating divs for me it is most appreciated. Please don't tell me to break this into separate questions as they are all related to the same thing. Please don't tell me this would be better asked somewhere else. If however you wish to be helpful great :)
If the solution is using display:table-cell alone, I've tried this, it makes the divs not behave as a block, shrinking it, the background shrinks to the content too, and in other ways it does not behave as a block. Also some versions of IE do not support this and I am looking for a cross browser solution. Thank you.
If you want your div elements to behave like table cells, you can style them that way:
.row {
display: table;
width: 100%;
}
.cell {
display: table-cell;
width: 33.33%;
vertical-align: middle;
text-align: center;
}
This does not rely on setting a height or min-height on the .cell elements, so the height will remain flexible.
--- jsFiddle DEMO ---
You may apply the CSS like this;
.row{
height: 200px;
}
.cell{
display:block;
float:left;
height:100%;
}
Here is a working Live Demo.
and Here is a workaround to distribute the columns also.
Hope this helps
Note: DO NOT add percentage attribute to child divs to fill parent div (for example 50% each for 2 child divs, 25% for 4 child divs etc) since these vary according to number of divs and cannot be calculated accurately sometimes
Well, I went the jQuery route...
http://jsfiddle.net/dtgEt/1/
I would like to point out that while yes, some people will just use a table, a table is for displaying tabular data, not layout. A div has no semantic meaning and therefor is a better choice, in my opinion (unless it is actually tabular data that your are publishing to the web).
My solution works in IE 7 and probably would in IE 6. If you want to align your content in the center of the container there are many good ways to do that others have suggested (beat me to it).
If you need the formatting of a table, but you have to support older browsers that don't have support for display:table, then use a table. It's pretty much that simple.
Sometimes a table is the appropriate option, and sometimes it's the only option that will work without adding some moderately-risky JS or jQuery to simulate the formatting of a table.
For instance, a table (or display:table, which amounts to the same thing) is the only natural way to have true vertical centering of dynamic content. It's also the only natural way to enforce equal-height columns for dynamic content. And in general, a table is appropriate anytime you need to display a data grid of some sort.
I am making a Web page with a slideshow, using the same technique used on http://zine.pocoo.org/. The person I'm making the site for wants the slideshow to be centered. However, some of the photos are portrait layout and some are landscape. (This was not my choice.) I need a position: absolute to get the li's containing the items in the right place, so centering them does not work. (At least, not by normal methods.)
So, I thought that it might work to insert a 124-pixel "spacer" before the image on the portrait pictures. I tried it with a <span style="width: 124px;"> </span>, but it only inserts a single space, not the full 124 pixels. The slideshow fades in and out OK, though, so I think that it would work if I could get the proper spacing.
My question is this: does anyone know a way to have 124px of space inline in HTML (preferably without using images), or another way to center the pictures in the li items?
This is way old, but I guess it's still worth answering. The reason your span isn't expanding is because it's still an inline element. set display:inline-block to get it to behave more like a block element
I think you need to add margin-left instead of padding-left, because the margin is outside an element, and the padding is inside.
Try to avoid putting large spacers on elements and especially on multiple elements. The only way to add a spacer on your element would be relative positioning or an inline-block element (use carefully.)
Your best bet for the slideshow is to have a relative positioned <ul>. Since the <ul> is relative positioned you can set the <li>s to be position:absolute; within the <ul>. At this point you can set the <li>s to width:100%; and text-align:center; so that anything inside is positioned in the horizontal center (vertical centering in CSS2 is tricky.) Check out http://jquery.malsup.com/cycle/ which outputs inline styling by default but is still really nice.