Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I was developing a web page, where I was laying out a board for a Chess-like game, along with a couple of piece trays. It's all done using HTML (with jQuery for dynamic updating as the game is played). Somewhere I'd got the notion that using absolute positioning of elements within a page was considered a bad practice, and that it was preferable to use relative positioning.
After struggling with relative positioning for too long, I realized that absolute positioning of the board elements would be much, much easier to get right... and it was.
Is anyone aware of a reason that relative positioning is preferable over absolute? Are there any guidelines or rules of thumb that you apply when deciding which approach to take?
For a chess like game such as you are developing, there is nothing inherently wrong with using absolute positioning. As you said, relative positioning and normal flow layout make this sort of task quite difficult.
Of course, if you were developing a more standard website, such as a site providing some public service, absolute positioning overrides the default flow layout of browsers and so will reduce accessibility for many users. In this case I would avoid it.
Having said that, a lesser known benefit of absolute positioning is that it allows localized absolute positioning within the nearest "positioned" parent element.
Note: A "positioned" element can be any of the following: relative, fixed, absolute, or sticky.
To explain:
<div id="parentDIV" style="position:relative">
<div id="childDIV" style="position:absolute;left:20px;top:20px;">
I'm absolutely positioned within parentDIV.
</div>
</div>
Here, childDIV is actually positioned 20px from the left and 20px from the top of parentDIV, NOT the overall document. This gives a nice precise control over nested elements on a page, without sacrificing the overall page flow-layout.
So to answer your question (relative positioning being preferred over absolute): I don't believe there is a correct answer, it depends on what you are needing to build. However in general positioning (absolute or relative) versus default flow layout, my approach is as described above.
Keep in mind also that absolute positioning is not only used for positioning things relative to the browser window - it's also used for positioning things accurately within a containing element. When I finally understood this - after years of using CSS - it really revolutionized my ability to use CSS effectively.
The key is that an absolutely positioned element is positioned in the context of the first ancestor element that has position:relative or position:absolute. So if you have this:
div.Container
{
position:relative
width:300px;
height:300px;
background:yellow;
}
div.PositionMe
{
position:absolute;
top:10px;
right:10px;
width:20px;
height:20px;
background:red
}
and
<div class=Container>
...
<div class=PositionMe>
...
</div>
...
</div>
...the div PositionMe will be placed relative to Container, not to the page.
This opens up all sorts of possibility for precise placement in particular situations, without sacrificing the overall flexibility and flow of the page.
It does not answer your question, but...
For a chess like game board I think you can also use a table.
After all, it is is columns and rows you are displaying.
Now I know that many people start shouting 'don't use tables' and 'tables are evil'. Tables are however still a valid tool for showing some types of data, especially columns / rows organised data.
Look at your website in different browsers under the following conditions:
Switch your OS settings to high-dpi/large fonts/high contrast (all change the size of the default browser font)
Increase/decrease the default font size in the browser
Override the page fonts in the browser (usually somewhere in the Accessibility options)
Override/turn off the page stylesheet (granted, users shouldn't expect a chess game to work properly in this scenario :-))
In general absolute position is bad when you have inline elements with non-fixed size fonts. For your scenario it might work; however, there will be a lot of edge cases where something funky will go on.
I think the problem is that absolute positioning is easy to abuse. A coordinate system is much easier for lay people to understand than the box model. Also, programs like Dreamweaver make it trivially simple to layout a page using absolute positioning (and people don't realize what they're doing).
However, for typical page layout, the default static positioning should be adequate and get the job done 90% of the time. It's very flexible, and by keeping everything in normal flow, elements are aware of the other elements around them, and will act according when things change. This is really good when dealing with dynamic content (which most pages are these days).
Using absolute positioning is far more rigid and makes it difficult to write layouts that respond well to changing content. They're simply too explicit. However, it is perfect if you're in need of freely moving elements around a page (drag/drop), need to overlay elements on top of each other, or other layout techniques that would benefit from working on a coordinate system. Frankly, a chessboard sounds like a fine reason to use it.
Relative positioning is nice if you can pull a totally fluid layout because it will look reasonable on a large range of screen resolutions.
That being said, it's quite often to find (especially when trying for cross-browser compatability with older versions), that totally fluid layouts are hard to get right. Falling back on absolute positioning shouldn't be frowned upon, most mortal web developers do it all the time.
As long as you structure your HTML so that the elements follow a logical order that makes sense when rendered without CSS, there is no reason why using absolute positioning should be considered bad practice.
There are no hard and fast rules. The different forms of positioning are all good at different things.
The majority of work is usually best done with static positioning (it is the least fragile option), but absolute positioning is very good on occasion. Relative positioning, on the other hand, is something I've never used except for animation (on elements which are statically positioned until JavaScript gets involved), establishing a containing block for absolute positioning (so the element itself isn't moved at all), and (very very rarely) a one or two pixel nudge of an element.
Some things are impossible to do without position:absolute. Other things are WAY easier to achive with absolute positioning (let say that you want a bottom-right button for "read more" in a fixed/min height box and you don't have enough text in that box).
So, my advice: just use the one that fits your needs...
It seems to me like I'm the only one here that totally disagree with the assumption that absolute posititioning is not a bad practice
Except conditions like animation or elements that should specifically sit in an "unusual" place whitin their parents, absolute positioning break the structure of your HTML (which is exactly what HTML suppose to define in my opinion) because you can achieve results that differ the visuality from the structure very easily.
Moreover, implementation of design is way harder and problematic with absolute because you need to measure every element and you have lot of place to mistake (against normal flow that is much easier and right for structure building of a website skeleton)
And finally, regarding the chess board, I believe that the hardest possible way to create it is using position absolute!
Making the board with table would be much easier and right (after all this is a table)... And personally I would do it with a cube class that would have float: left (with clear on every ninth cube)
Absolute positioning of 64 different square is insane!
IMO, not a bad thing at all. I have recently completed an assignment with AA standards compliance and support for FF2, IE7, IE6 (yes, a pain I know). There were certain layouts which were only achievable because of absolutely positioning! Even certain components like buttons where layering was needed (transparencies) were possible only because of absolute positioning. If someone has a better way, please refer me to that.
Absolute positioning breaks the flow, if we know how to restrict the flow (change parent's coords to relative/absolute) it is fun. I don't know about older browsers (IE6 itself is a dinosaur) but one painful thing I found was, writing to PDF (Cute PDF) or opening with WINWORD (sue me) gives a shabby result.
Absolute positioning is a tool, like any tool, it can be used in good and bad ways. There is nothing wrong with it: StackOverflow probably uses it to display its alerts in the orange bar at the top of the site.
Now, in your situation, this is not bad either. But I think it would be much easier for you not to use it.
A chess board is a table, table cells don't need position tweaks. For events, onblur / onfocus and cie will do the job. Why would you even need pixels calculation?
So don't be stressed by the quality of your practice, but maybe you could check if you really need absolute positioning.
Related
I've been working with HTML and CSS for a while now.
Every time I work in CSS, I have a feeling that I'm not "doing it right".
For instance, when positioning different divs and elements on a webpage, I use "position: absolute" and "position: relative" quite often.
This can sometimes be very tedious to find the "right" position and results in very ugly numbers, such as:
position: relative;
width: 1300px;
height: -720px;
In addition to above, it also makes it very difficult to edit said divs and elements later on if I change my mind about their appearance or position.
I've watched a lot of tutorials on YouTube where people use "margin" and "padding" tags to position the elements on their websites.
I'm very confused by this since those tags are supposed to be used for creating space around elements and not actually change their position.
The strange thing is, that it is much easier to edit the website using "margin" and "padding" tags later on, if you change your mind about the appearance/positioning of those elements since they won't move around and overlap each other.
I apologize for the long query but this has been bothering me a lot lately and I would appreciate any advice regarding the positioning of elements in CSS.
Thank you
The biggest distinction between position and margin or padding is that when you set the position to absolute, relative or fixed, the element is taken out of the "normal flow" of the document and placed in its own layer. This is what allows you to use the z-index property and stack elements on top of each other. This has dramatic advantages when the elements in question are going to be dynamically sized or animated because doing so won't cause all other elements in the document to have to "re-flow", nor will the entire document have to "re-paint". In fact, when working with dynamic sizing or animations it is strongly recommended that you take elements out of the flow this way or performance can suffer.
Beyond this, understanding how absolute, relative and fixed positioning work is essential.
Absolute Positioning positions the element relative to its nearest ancestor that, itself, has been manually positioned or the body element if no ancestor has been positioned. The element is taken out of the flow and any space the element was taking up in that flow is removed.
Relative Positioning positions the element as an offset to its original location in the normal flow, but leaves the original space that the element took up in the document even though the element is now in its own layer.
Fixed Positioning is similar to absolute, except that the position is not relative to anything. It is fixed at an exact location you specify.
While all of these will pull the element into its own layer, how the layers are stacked (via "stacking contexts") are dependent upon which type of positioning you've used and the structure of the elements being positioned.
These are the reasons to use position. If you are not in need of new layers, using CSS float, flexbox are tools that can offer alternative ways to design a layout.
margin and padding should really not be used for the layout itself. They are used for small tweaks within a layout.
In summary, the default way the a browser lays out the contents of a page is the CSS Box Model, but using CSS position is one way to have certain content use that box model in different layers from the main content. CSS floats offer another, separate layout algorithm and Flexbox offers yet another. In the near future, the CSS Grid specification will be standardized and yet another layout paradigm will be available.
But margin and padding are not layout models. They are just tools to use in whatever layout model you happen to be using.
I have started getting into web development and have created a first draft for my website siavoush-re.co.uk, however the more research I do the more I realise the methods I have used for positioning is not good.
is positioning with margins better than using relative/absolute
positioning?
What is best practise when positioning elements, especially for responsive design?
What methods should I avoid using or are outdated?
Margins and paddings are better than positioning use % unit for responsive designs.
You can use position:relative; for the responsive design as BOOTSTRAP also use this positioning,but using absolute positioning will move your content when you view on a small device.
Avoid using pt or px unit for font-size, use 'EM'
Relative and absolute positioning isn’t bad per se, sometimes useful, but just incredibly easy to do wrong.
You want multiple columns. Traditionally, we use the float property for that, as legacy browsers support it well. There are a couple of new properties that will allow you to create columns as well, but legacy browsers do not support them, so for now I would personally discourage use unless you’re absolutely sure your visitors run modern browsers and you don’t care if the site fails on legacy browsers.
The Easy Way
Either way, floating in CSS is tough. I would highly recommend a responsive grid system. There are many CSS downloads available. All you have to do is use the appropriate classes for your columns.
Bootstrap: http://getbootstrap.com/ (comes with a lot of extras, so use with caution)
Skeleton: http://getskeleton.com/
Pure.css: http://purecss.io/
Responsive Grid System: http://www.responsivegridsystem.com/
There are tons more.
The Hard Way
By far, floating is the most popular choice. Floating elements causes block elements (like divs) to sit aside. You apply a width to each column, and voila, you have multiple columns. Doing sizing with gutters and paddings is slightly annoying, hence I recommend using an existing stylesheet that does it all for you. Basically, after several columns, you will have to append an element with the clear property to fix the layout flow.
Alternatively, depending on your target audience, you can use CSS columns, flexbox or grid.
Why Not Use Absolute/Relative?
Browsers sort out the flow for you. Growing elements will push down anything that comes after. Relative positioning doesn’t change this behaviour, but absolute positioning does. It just smacks the element on top of your stuff, and you will have to make room for you content yourself.
I do use relative/absolute positioning sometimes, but only to make things overlap. For example, I have an image container (relative), that holds an image (absolute) and a title/label (absolute). By having the latter two positioned absolutely, I can move within the container as I like. By setting a size on the container, I can put it anywhere I want without breaking the flow.
It depends, relative position is the positioning of elements
relative to the actual flow of HTML.
Whereas absolute positioning is in reference the the top-left coordinate of your document. (not always)
Best practices for responsive layouts?
There is nothing best, you must know when to use media queries and use % instead of px for columns widths and also float property.
Here you can find the list of depreciated properties and tags
Very nice work :)
You can investigate Bootstrap http://getbootstrap.com. I used it recently and with this framerowk you can do amazing responsive websites :) Simply add specified classes and styles to <div>, <span>, <p> and other HTML elements.
CSS resets help establish a baseline from which all the styles are set. A reset effectively overrides the browsers’ default styles for certain elements (which can vary greatly). Despite the popularity of CSS resets over the past several years, many sites still don’t employ them, and these sites’ CSS scalability is suffering greatly for it.
Instead of using the extremely popular CSS Reset by Eric Meyer (because it is too far-reaching) or making up a DIY reset, many people recommend using normalize.css. Normalize.css “normalizes” the code to a common baseline rather than resetting the base styling for elements across all browsers. Referring to the normalize.css project on Github, these are its advantages over a CSS reset:
Preserves useful defaults, unlike many CSS resets
Normalizes styles for a wide range of HTML elements
Corrects bugs and common browser inconsistencies
Improves usability with subtle improvements
Explains what code does using detailed comments
Using normalize.css in lieu of a standard reset will get you on the right coding foot and save a lot of time in not having to reestablish baseline styles.
enter link description here
To answer each of your questions in turn:
This really depends on the context of the element in the HTML and what you are trying to achieve in the site layout. Quite simply, there are often multiple solutions to a problem. Sometimes it is more appropriate to use margins, some solutions are best left to relative positioning, and other times absolute positioning is your only answer.
See 1 although I would avoid hard coding widths and heights in pixels: % and em are commonly used in responsive design. My best advice would be to follow a few tutorials and see how the CSS works together. The CSS media-design is often used in responsive web design.
Best to follow W3C recommendations for outdated HTML and CSS. From the top of my head, you should avoid using <table> tags to define site layout.
Interesting read: http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/
I have a site that is ~5000 pixels in height (ie relatively large). In order to position things absolutely on it I've created the below setup:
absolute div --> relative div --> multiple absolutely positioned images
I'm wondering if it is costly for processing purposes that my absolutely positioned div and relative div are 100% height each on such a large page?
The reason I am doing this is because I am transforming the parent div with translateY (which uses the GPU). However translateY translate elements relative to their height. If I do this on the images, it becomes difficult to move multiple elements with the same speed since they will be different height. I.e. I will need to translateY(200%) for an image that is half the height as the other image.
However moving the parent absolute div is much easier.
But my concern is that it is quite costly in that it is such a large div. Can someone with more knowledge let me know if this is bad to have such a large absolutely position div and relative div? Note I have a lot of images on my site...
It usually falls down to if they're parsed from HTML or dynamically generated with JavaScript. The latter(JS) is very fast compared to the former(HTML).
I'd be more worried if those images you are using are properly compressed for use on the web, you'd be surprised how many people think changing the size is enough. This answer has many variables to consider, you have to think about the content of each div, usage of CSS, amount of images used in each div, the browser you are using, etc.
You could also call divs as they are used, not just load them because the page loads. This would require the use of JS. If you are worried about performance, I can tell you right off the bat, worry about the images and how you load those.
It depends on how do you render the layout.
Because you don't have any DEMO, so I can only guess and provide some knowledge to you.
You can use chrome developer tools to find out the performance issue.
check this (in timeline, enable Show paint rectangles to figure out the performance problem)
I think you can try css property will-change: transform, if you want to use many transform in the same layer. It will help you to accelerate render speed, just like use transform3d instead of transform2d
more about will-change
I give you the common performance issue.
You can find out the remaining by yourself
, or you can give more DEMO to us. :)
I appreciate that I could just "try it and see", but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution here and ask if anyone has prior experience with this matter, or knowledge that would allow an answer ;)
I'm working on a feature that will include many elements (around 800) in a canvas-like container. All of these are <div> elements with a background-image. They will be aligned to a grid.
I have some ideas for neat animations that would involve transitioning elements to their new positions when some of them are added or removed - this would involve position:absolute and setting left and top appropriately.
I'd like to know how well browsers would handle this kind of thing, or if I would be better off just using display:inline-block and letting them flow as they would - no neat transitions, though.
In short I'm just wondering if the use of position:absolute, ie. removing the elements from the document flow, would be too much for the browser to handle when updating, as opposed to simply allowing the elements to exist in the flow of the document.
Does that make sense? I feel like I'm wording this horribly XD
If all of the elements will have the same height, then I'd just use display:inline-block or float:left, and they'll fit nicely together.
If the elements will have different heights, they will not perfectly "fall in line" when floated or displayed as inline-blocks.
For the latter, using a jquery plugin such as Masonry would be a sensible solution. Masonry uses the absolute positioning your question refers to, and no, it is not too much for the browser "to handle."
You can, of course, still use Masonry if your divs will have the same height.
Without a script solution like Masonry, I doubt it'd be a good idea to use absolute positioning on 800 elements to achieve your desired result.
I am new to the world of coding, XHTML, CSS as well as PHP. I have come across numerous tutorials regarding positioning i.e. relative, absolute and fixed however have no idea when I have to use them or when it is the best to use them. I would appreciate some examples.
ALA has a nice tutorial (there're lots of examples)
CSS positioning can be especially useful when you need to position something that cannot be positioned within normal flow.
For understanding CSS positioning, you need to get familiarize with the "CSS BOX Model"
There are tons of tutorials online.
Here are some good ones with examples for beginners:
http://www.brainjar.com/css/positioning/default.asp
http://www.tizag.com/cssT/position.php
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/css-positioning-101/
Two that I frequently use are:
Relative positioning: helps you style elements relative to other elements. E.g. you want to move an input to the right relative to the div it's inside.
Fixed positioning: great for things like Refresh suggestions that get 'fixed' so that they follow you wherever you scroll.
It's best to play around with them and see for yourself.
To use CSS for layout effectively, it helps to know how it's used to position page content. This article gives an overview of the methods and rules that govern visual rendering in the CSS2 specification. It also points out some things to watch out for.
http://www.handycss.com/how/how-to-use-css-positioning/
My understanding is that we should use positioning either when we want to place any CSS element with respect to view port(position:fixed) or we want to place CSS element with respect to container(container get position:relative and child get position:absolute). But you should know limitation before using position absolute or position fixed. Absolute and fixed don't contribute to height of the parent element. This can create various unexpected results. Suppose you want to apply background image on relative element which has absolute element containing most of content. Background image will not spread over your content as it will not get height of content. Also you should not heavily rely on top/left/bottom/right for placing elements. They might help you to get expected arrangement on one view port size but can distort it completely on other view port size/resolution.