I need some help to fix my rounded border. It looks so ugly. I want it more smooth, but I can't seem to fix it no matter what. I don't know what I am doing wrong.
Here is a picture of it:
Here is my HTML:
<div class="sidebar">
<!-- User avatar/message/notification/settings buttons -->
<div class="userpanel">
<div class="userpanel-image">
<img src="image.jpg">
</div>
<div class="userpanel-buttons">
<ul>
<li><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-envelope"></span></li>
<li><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-bell"></span></li>
<li><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-cog"></span></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
And here is my CSS:
.sidebar > .userpanel > .userpanel-image img {
border: 1px solid white;
border-radius: 25px;
margin: 3px;
margin-right: 25px;
}
This ultimately depends upon the pixel density of the monitor you are using.
Pixels per inch (PPI) or pixels per centimeter (PPCM) is a measurement of the pixel density (resolution) of an electronic image device, such as a computer monitor or television display, or image digitizing device such as a camera or image scanner. Horizontal and vertical density are usually the same, as most devices have square pixels, but differ on devices that have non-square pixels.
For example, a 15 inch (38 cm) display whose dimensions work out to 12 inches (30.48 cm) wide by 9 inches (22.86 cm) high, capable of a maximum 1024×768 (or XGA) pixel resolution, can display around 85 PPI in both the horizontal and vertical directions. This figure is determined by dividing the width (or height) of the display area in pixels by the width (or height) of the display area in inches. It is possible for a display to have different horizontal and vertical PPI measurements (e.g., a typical 4:3 ratio CRT monitor showing a 1280×1024 mode computer display at maximum size, which is a 5:4 ratio, not quite the same as 4:3). The apparent PPI of a monitor depends upon the screen resolution (that is, the number of pixels) and the size of the screen in use; a monitor in 800×600 mode has a lower PPI than does the same monitor in a 1024×768 or 1280×960 mode.
Monitors with a higher pixel density will tend to smooth curves much better visually.
There's really nothing you can generally do to improve the pixel density display via HTML/CSS or really, anything. You merely have to learn to live with the quality of your monitor or upgrade it.
In some cases, applying a slight 1px box-shadow the same color as your circle can assist in the monitor anti-aliasing. However, that's not 100% successful either.
You're definetly not doing anything wrong.
Maybe that just because the border is too thin. Try to change border: 1px solid white; to 2px, 3px, or whatever you like. Give it try.
For me this looks best:
.userpanel-image {
width: 100px;
height: 100px;
border-radius: 100%;
box-shadow: 0 0 1px 1px white;
overflow: hidden;
}
.userpanel-image img {
width: 98px;
height: 98px;
}
Unfortunately i had the same problem several times. I think this might be a render problem which cant be solved 100%. Maybe you can use the workaround i used for my "border-problem" to make it look sharper (I did not test it on every single browser so u might have to check that out)
body {background:black;}
div {
width:100px;
height:100px;
display:block;
background:#fff;
border-radius:100%;
padding:2px;
}
img {
display:block;
border-radius:100%;
display:block;
width:100px;
height:100px;
}
<div>
<img src="https://unsplash.it/100" alt="">
</div>
Usually when I'm faced with this problem, I just reduce the contrast of the colors to help ease the pixelated anti-aliasing (as I mentioned in my comment). This is not always an option however. The real problem you are facing is that the browser will apply a certain amount of anti-aliasing to prevent complete jaggedness and you don't really have control over the intensity of that anti-aliasing that's applied. Here's an alternative that you can use to help take control of the appearance. You can use box-shadow to supplement or replace your existing border:
body {
background: #223;
padding-bottom: 25px;
text-align: center;
color: white;
}
div {
margin-top: 25px;
}
img {
display:inline-block;
border-radius: 50%;
border: 1px solid white;
vertical-align: middle;
}
div + div img {
box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 white;
}
div + div + div img {
box-shadow: 0 0 0 1px white;
border: none;
}
<div>border only: <img src="//placehold.it/50/933/FFF"></div>
<div>border + box-shadow: <img src="//placehold.it/50/933/FFF">
<div>box-shadow only: <img src="//placehold.it/50/933/FFF">
Related
sorry if this has been asked a zillion times. i am unable to find a satisfactory answer.
whats the simple and efficient way to display any and all images in 16:10 ratio on page, where the width of image is set to x% (responsive design).
so basically how to work on height. instead of height: auto, use height: width*10/16 or something. or any other solution that makes this possible with little code and effort.
using either CSS or JS or even PHP.
for example, this div with img's:
<div>
<img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img540/2396/OrosLf.jpg" />
<img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img908/5868/G92vQu.jpg" />
</div>
wit hthis CSS:
div { height: 100%; width: 100%; }
img {
display: block; float: left;
background: #ccc; border: 1px solid #555;
width: 45%;
height: auto;
}
heres the fiddle: JSFIDDLE
PS: i did check object-fit but i guess its not well supported? - caniuse objectfit
Something I've been wondering for a while whilst doing CSS design.
Are decimal places in CSS widths respected? Or are they rounded?
.percentage {
width: 49.5%;
}
or
.pixel {
width: 122.5px;
}
If it's a percentage width, then yes, it is respected:
#outer {
width: 200px;
}
#first {
width: 50%;
height: 20px;
background-color: red;
}
#second {
width: 50.5%;
height: 20px;
background-color:green;
}
#third {
width: 51%;
height: 20px;
background-color:blue;
}
<div id="outer">
<div id="first"> </div>
<div id="second"> </div>
<div id="third"> </div>
</div>
As Martin pointed out, things break down when you get to fractional pixels, but if your percentage values yield integer pixel value (e.g. 50.5% of 200px in the example) you'll get sensible, expected behaviour.
Edit: I've updated the example to show what happens to fractional pixels (in Chrome the values are truncated, so 50, 50.5 and 50.6 all show the same width.)
#percentage {
width: 200px;
color: white;
}
#percentage .first {
width: 50%;
height: 20px;
background-color: red;
}
#percentage .second {
width: 50.5%;
height: 20px;
background-color:green;
}
#percentage .third {
width: 51%;
height: 20px;
background-color:blue;
}
#pixels {
color: white;
}
#pixels .first {
width: 50px;
height: 20px;
background-color: red;
}
#pixels .second {
width: 50.5px;
height: 20px;
background-color:green;
}
#pixels .third {
width: 50.6px;
height: 20px;
background-color:blue;
}
#pixels .fourth {
width: 51px;
height: 20px;
background-color:red;
}
<div id="percentage">
<div class="first">50%=100px</div>
<div class="second">50.5%=101px</div>
<div class="third">51%=102px</div>
</div>
<br />
<div id="pixels">
<div class="first">50px</div>
<div class="second">50.5px</div>
<div class="third">50.6px</div>
<div class="fourth">51px</div>
</div>
Even when the number is rounded when the page is painted, the full value is preserved in memory and used for subsequent child calculation. For example, if your box of 100.4999px paints to 100px, it's child with a width of 50% will be calculated as .5*100.4999 instead of .5*100. And so on to deeper levels.
I've created deeply nested grid layout systems where parents widths are ems, and children are percents, and including up to four decimal points upstream had a noticeable impact.
Edge case, sure, but something to keep in mind.
Although fractional pixels may appear to round up on individual elements (as #SkillDrick demonstrates very well) it's important to know that the fractional pixels are actually respected in the actual box model.
This can best be seen when elements are stacked next to (or on top of) each other; in other words, if I were to place 400 0.5 pixel divs side by side, they would have the same width as a single 200 pixel div. If they all actually rounded up to 1px (as looking at individual elements would imply) we'd expect the 200px div to be half as long.
This can be seen in this runnable code snippet:
body {
color: white;
font-family: sans-serif;
font-weight: bold;
background-color: #334;
}
.div_house div {
height: 10px;
background-color: orange;
display: inline-block;
}
div#small_divs div {
width: 0.5px;
}
div#large_div div {
width: 200px;
}
<div class="div_house" id="small_divs">
<p>0.5px div x 400</p>
<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="div_house" id="large_div">
<p>200px div x 1</p>
<div></div>
</div>
The width will be rounded to an integer number of pixels.
I don't know if every browser will round it the same way though. They all seem to have a different strategy when rounding sub-pixel percentages. If you're interested in the details of sub-pixel rounding in different browsers, there's an excellent article on ElastiCSS.
edit: I tested #Skilldrick's demo in some browsers for the sake of curiosity. When using fractional pixel values (not percentages, they work as suggested in the article I linked) IE9p7 and FF4b7 seem to round to the nearest pixel, while Opera 11b, Chrome 9.0.587.0 and Safari 5.0.3 truncate the decimal places. Not that I hoped that they had something in common after all...
They seem to round up the values to the closest integer; but Iam seeing inconsistency in chrome,safari and firefox.
For e.g if 33.3% converts to 420.945px
chrome and firexfox show it as 421px.
while
safari shows its as 420px.
This seems like chrome and firefox follow the floor and ceil logic while safari doesn't.
This page seems to discuss the same problem
http://ejohn.org/blog/sub-pixel-problems-in-css/
Elements have to paint to an integer number of pixels, and as the other answers covered, percentages are indeed respected.
An important note is that pixels in this case means css pixels, not screen pixels, so a 200px container with a 50.7499% child will be rounded to 101px css pixels, which then get rendered onto 202px on a retina screen, and not 400 * .507499 ~= 203px.
Screen density is ignored in this calculation, and there is no way to paint* an element to specific retina subpixel sizes. You can't have elements' backgrounds or borders rendered at less than 1 css pixel size, even though the actual element's size could be less than 1 css pixel as Sandy Gifford showed.
[*] You can use some techniques like 0.5 offset box-shadow, etc, but the actual box model properties will paint to a full CSS pixel.
I'm stumped on how to achieve this with FabricJS. I have the fabric container:
<div class="canvasContainer canvasDemo">
<canvas id="canvas" width="1935" height="1380"></canvas>
</div>
with the corresponding CSS:
.canvasContainer {
border: 1px solid #ccc;
box-shadow: 1px 1px 5px rgba(0,0,0, 0.25);
border-radius: 5px;
margin-top: 5px;
overflow: hidden;
width: 935px;
height: 380px;
}
#canvas {
overflow: visible
}
This effectively creates a much larger canvas inside a container. I was hoping there was something built-in to Fabric that would allow me to "move" the entire canvas to different parts of the overall canvas. Basically, the goal is to have a smaller visible area on a much larger overall canvas.
My goal is to have the move icon on the visible canvas when it is in selection mode so the user can move the entire canvas to other sections of the overall drawing.
Any ideas on how to achieve this with FabricJS?
I have the same problem. I need a hand to move to others zones of canvas and in my case, the scroll don't is an option...
Have you tried x Zoom In Zoom Out? Probably is a solution for you, please look: http://jsfiddle.net/Q3TMA/98/
<canvas id="c" width="1935" height="1380"></canvas>
Please see this fiddle
My main concern in this fiddle is the div#text and img.frame. I'm trying to create a responsive website, but this has been my problem for so long, I can't figure out how 'to make the img behave beside the text and be responsive at the same time when I try to reduce the size of the browser window. What it does is, it goes under the text before it acts responsively. Is there a workaround for this?
<div id="text">This is some text this is some text this is some text</div>
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/TomandJerryTitleCardc.jpg/250px-TomandJerryTitleCardc.jpg" width="294" height="225" class="frame" />
For your goal you should use em or % and use inline-block.
jsfiddle.net/geNuR/ Look at this jsfiddle
Don't know why i can't put code propely, maybe forum blocked our country))
The key to responsive images with flowed text does rely on float. However, the key is in floating the img element, not the text.
First, place the img tag before the text, giving a markup as so:
<img src="image.jpg" width="294" height="225" class="frame" />
<div id="text">This is some text this is some text this is some text</div>
The importance of this order is that the img will be floated to the right, removing its cleared blocked region height, and the text will flow up and around it.
Next, remove the float from the text, allowing it to flow, and apply a float right to the image. I will also note, that to give a margin between the text and the img, the margin is applied to the img, giving you this styling:
img { max-width: 100%; height: auto; }
#text{ width:100px;}
.frame {
float:right;
background: #fff;
padding: 6px;
margin-left:10px;
box-shadow: 1px 1px 2px rgba(40, 40, 40, 0.8);
-moz-box-shadow: 1px 1px 2px rgba(40, 40, 40, 0.8);
-webkit-box-shadow: 1px 1px 2px rgba(40, 40, 40, 0.8);
}
Here is a jfiddle demonstration
I'm assuming that you're looking to have text and an image side-by-side here, so apologies if I'm wrong.
Like M. Berro, I would first put the two elements inside a containing div, as below:
<div id="container">
<p class="text">Here's some text. This will be aligned to the left, and next to the image. It's width will change as the viewport expands or contracts.</p>
<img src="/image.png" title="An image, aligned right" />
</div>
To sit the image and text side-by side, I would use the following CSS as a starting point:
#container {}
#container p.text { float: left; min-width: 320px; }
#container img { float: right; margin-left: 20px; }
In my example, I've applied a float to each of the two elements (You will of course have to clear the floats to make sure the rest of the page's structure remains intact - I suggest looking at Clearfix, as it avoids any extra empty divs). I've also given the text a min-width: this ensures that the text doesn't contract to a point where it is unreadable!
As I understand you need an image beside a text, so when you reduce the window size the image and text behavior isn't affected.
You need the following:
Make a container div id=img_container give style width (let's say 400px)
Put your image inside the container and give a style #img_container img{float: left}
Put your text inside a p tag and give style #img_container (p or div) and give style (margin-left: same of your img width) + 10
This is the full example:
<style>
#img_container {
width: 400px;
}
#img_container.text {
margin-left: 306px;
}
#img_container img.frame {
float: left;
}
</style>
<div id="img_container">
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/TomandJerryTitleCardc.jpg/250px-TomandJerryTitleCardc.jpg" width="294" height="225" class="frame" />
<div id="text">This is some text this is some text this is some text</div>
</div>
You could start by adding the css max-width: 60%; in .frame. It's not perfect but is this similar to what you are trying to achieve? Better results can be realized with javascript/jQuery.
What is the proper way to create responsive, transparent CSS captions over images — with graceful degradation in older browsers?
I am trying to achieve:
Centered vertical column of images
Images are equal heights and widths
Each image has a caption which should be centered
Caption should have a see-through background
Would be nice if the background became black in older browsers that don't support transparency
If you take a look at this Fiddle example, there's clearly a lot wrong with it.
The basic premise for HTML5 is:
<section>
<figure>
<img src="1.jpg">
<figcaption>Caption 1</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure>
<img src="2.jpg">
<figcaption>Caption 2</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure>
<img src="3.jpg">
<figcaption>Caption 3</figcaption>
</figure>
</section>
But the CSS3 code is where we get some problems. Is it the right approach even? I got it to work with some fine-tuning (not included), but the fine-tuning doesn't seem to make semantic sense to me anyway.
For example, this is the result:
I have a feeling the CSS is wrong on many levels (pun intended).
I modified your CSS slightly. The main changes were adding position: relative; to the parent element and position: absolute; to the caption.
CSS:
section {
overflow: auto;
}
section figure {
float: left;
clear: both;
position: relative;
overflow: auto;
margin: 0 auto;
padding: 30px 0 0 0;
font-size: 15px;
}
section figure img {
vertical-align: bottom;
}
section figure figcaption {
position: absolute;
bottom: 0;
left: 0;
right: 0;
background: rgba(0,0,0,0.7);
text-align: center;
color: #fff;
padding: 10px;
}
section {
padding-bottom: 30px;
background: #ccc;
}
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/XjthT/6/