• 0

Need help with 100% height float element


Question

Hey all. Right now I am trying to get the left navigation button to be a height of 100% because this will be my mobile CSS sheet.

I want it to go all the way down the white element that it is in.

The pink background color is there to help me see what's going on.

I'm using Firefox's web dev. inspector and it seems the #left-col is not height 100%, which means I won't be able to get the #prev-button-i to be height 100%, which is what I need.

My thought is maybe this is caused by the float? Maybe it really is at height 100% but it's just displayed differently because of the left float?

The site with the issue

http://alllols.com/index3.php

http://alllols.com/stylem.css

The main site with no issue (maybe it's useful?)

http://alllols.com/index.php

http://alllols.com/style.css

If anyone is curious, I just made this site for fun to learn PHP and MySQL :)

16 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Hard to figure out what is up because you seem to have height:100% on just about everything

Thank god I'm not the only one.

Could it be because, if when there is no float, it is at 100% height. So when it's floating, it is at 100%, we just perceive it to not be at 100% height?

  • 0

Thank god I'm not the only one.

Could it be because, if when there is no float, it is at 100% height. So when it's floating, it is at 100%, we just perceive it to not be at 100% height?

if you didn't abuse 100% height like this the height of all the elements should have been based on the content and there shouldn't have been any bug at all :p

Also don't use float on every single element either, float is usseless when there is no element next to it, and use other position types then static(default) if neccessary (absolute, relative, fixed).

  • 0

if you didn't abuse 100% height like this the height of all the elements should have been based on the content and there shouldn't have been any bug at all :p

Also don't use float on every single element either, float is usseless when there is no element next to it, and use other position types then static(default) if neccessary (absolute, relative, fixed).

Can you be more specific? I need that button to be 100% height because resolutions change. What am I supposed to do?

  • 0

Can you be more specific? I need that button to be 100% height because resolutions change. What am I supposed to do?

you mean the next and previous buttons right?

if so, try using fixed or absolute:


.nextbutton {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
bottom: 0;
right: 0;
width: 30px;
}
[/CODE]

  • 0

I don't want to sound rude but that's some nasty code here. I don't even know where to start. Maybe reading a book on css would be a good idea ...

prev-button-a cannot go all the way down the element it is in because there's a br after it. You should apply display:block to prev-button-a since you have a block level element inside it. Never put a block level element inside an inline element. The height 100% to prev-button-i will never ever do anything for 2 reasons. Its parent is an inline element (which doesn't support the height property). The height of an inline element is the height of the line (line-height). If you apply display:block to the parent of prev-button-i then it wont change anything cause the height of its parent (prev-button-a) is set to auto (ie the height of the content inside it which is min-height:100px).

<div id="left-col"> height is set to auto too. Like prev-button-a it will take the height of the content part of the normal page flow inside it. Its height will be 100px too if you remove the br (min-height:100px). Add to this the padding 60px at the top. Add to this the line-height of the br under it if you don't remove it. This element is floated. It is not part of the normal page flow. The reason <div id="left"> has an height is because of the central content (which is part of the normal page flow). As far as <div id="left-col"> goes its parent doesn't have any height other than min-height:220px.

Here's a quote from the css spec :

percentage

Specifies a percentage height. The percentage is calculated with respect to the height of the generated box's containing block. If the height of the containing block is not specified explicitly (i.e., it depends on content height), and this element is not absolutely positioned, the value computes to 'auto'.

So according to the css spec since the parent's height of <div id="left-col"> is not explicitely specified and <div id="col-left"> is floated then its height in % is then set to auto.

prev-button-i height is 100px because of min-height:100px. Remove this property and its height will then become 0px. You should try working with absolute positionning instead since absolu

  • 0

Here's something to help you start. It's not perfect by any mean since i did this really quickly in my break in about 10 min (with the previous post).

#left-col{
	width: 56px;
	height: 95%;
	position: absolute;
	left: 0px;
	top: 60px;
}

#prev-button-a{
	display: block;
	height: 100%;
}

#prev-button-i {
	height: 100%;
	width: 56px;
	background: url("./s_images/prev-button.png") no-repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(255, 0, 255);
	min-height: 100px;
}

You should think about merging prev-button-i into prev-button-a. No reason to have both.

  • 0

It is indeed some messy css but rewriting it all might not be a option he would like to choose :p

That's why I posted the position absolute code, which should work no matter what the parent elements are like(ofcourse the parent elements shouldn't have position relative or fixed in that case)

  • 0

Thanks guys, I will try this later today. And LaP, why is my CSS so bad looking? Is there anywhere online that could help me with this?

You can read the specification. It's a daunting task but if you are serious about web design i think it's something that needs to be done once.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/

If you find reading the specification boring then a book is probably your best option. But i actually think the specification is easy to read and well explained.

After that you can find a good blog to learn about the quicks. I'm french so the blogs i'm reading are mostly french but i'm sure you can find good ones in english too. Here's one of the blog i read once a week.

http://www.alsacreations.com/

If you want to start with html5 there's a good free online book.

http://diveintohtml5.info/

http://html5please.com/

You should take a look at responsive web design too specially if you are into mobile web site.

http://alistapart.com/article/responsive-web-design

  • 0

Thanks guys, I will try this later today. And LaP, why is my CSS so bad looking? Is there anywhere online that could help me with this?

a large part is complexity. if you write the earlier rules only with what it ends up looking in mind without thinking forward (i.e. have a general plan of how you're laying everything out before writing any code) you often end up having to put in unnecessary properties to hack the result into what you want it to be. despite the name, too many cascades make it really difficult to work with because anyone troubleshooting can't tell head from toes.

  • 0

a large part is complexity. if you write the earlier rules only with what it ends up looking in mind without thinking forward (i.e. have a general plan of how you're laying everything out before writing any code) you often end up having to put in unnecessary properties to hack the result into what you want it to be. despite the name, too many cascades make it really difficult to work with because anyone troubleshooting can't tell head from toes.

This and the usual diseases called "classite" and "divite".

You don't have to put everything in a div with a class attached to it. When you have 5-6 levels deep of div it becomes as bad as using tables.

The web site is really simple yet the code is hard to read without a dom inspector.

Here's a good example :

&lt;div id="footer"&gt;&lt;div id="footer-text"&gt;&lt;span&gt; ? &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; ? &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; ? &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; ? &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; ? &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;

There's no reason to have 2 divs here. The spans are also useless since all the text share the same visual style. The css of the span > a in this footer could be merged.

You should use meaningful tag as much as possible. a for link. p for paragraph. h for headers. etc etc etc

The div and span tags have no meaning. They do not inform the reader about the content. Ideally they should be used only when you need to group elements and apply a common visual style to them.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • I haven't paid for windows since windows 8. So I guess I would be happy to pay for a new version if it meant seeing fewer adverts (none) or product pushes. But that applies to _any_ service or OS.
    • Save 35% on Sony's SS-CS5M2 3-way high-res bookshelf speakers by Taras Buria Sony is currently offering a big discount on its SS-CS5M2 bookshelf speaker, saving you 35% on a set of high-quality audio equipment. The SS-CS5M2 is a passive 3-way bookshelf speaker with a 5.12-inch woofer, a 25 mm soft-dome tweeter, and a 19 mm super tweeter. This design allows different drivers to handle different parts of the sound spectrum for a clearer, more detailed audio when watching movies or listening to music. The compact cabinet size allows you to place these speakers on shelves, desks, or stands, making them a practical choice for apartments, bedrooms, and small living rooms. Despite its compact size, the SS-CS5M2 delivers up to 100 W of power. Note that since the speakers are passive, you will need an amplifier to drive them. However, if you do, you can use them for high-resolution music, thanks to a claimed frequency response of 53 Hz - 50 kHz. It is able to extend so far high in the spectrum as a result of those super tweeters. While they will work with most amplifiers and AV receivers, Sony says this pair is a perfect match for its AV receivers, such as STRDH190, 590, 790, or 1000. Sony CS Bookshelf Speakers SS-CS5M2 3-Way 3-Driver Hi-res - $178 | 36% off on Amazon US This Amazon deal is US-specific and not available in other regions unless specified. This is a first-party seller link (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you also purchase from a first-party seller link only. If you don't like it or want to look at more options, check out the previous deals that we have covered, OR you can also visit Amazon US deals page. Get Prime (SNAP), Prime Video, Audible Plus or Kindle / Music Unlimited. Free for 30 days. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • So they somehow expect Apple to easily make it so that if I install say DeepSeek that DS can then handle all the tasks that Siri would be doing while integrated in the OS? That sounds like just rediculous.
    • For ray-tracing, the Radeon RX 9070 XT is better than the GeForce RTX 5070, but worse than the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti The Radeon RX 9070 XT is similar to the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti in rasterization Both AMD and NVIDIA have had serious issues with drivers in the past, so I can't say that one is better or worse than the other. Yes. AMD has better support Linux than does NVIDIA. Use Display Driver Uninstaller (DDU) to uninstall NVIDIA's drivers before installing AMD's drivers. That's up to you. Supplies of memory is unpredictable because AI using up a lot of memory. As a result, there is a lot of volatility in video card prices.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Rookie
      lamborghiniv10 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • One Month Later
      pinnclepd earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • First Post
      X-No-file earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      johnjacobb40 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      Primer1st earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      509
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      215
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      145
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      88
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      83
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!