• 0

Javascript to auto scale webpage


Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
  On 22/03/2014 at 21:36, Seahorsepip said:

Yeah IE is a acting like a bad boy again...

Fix:

 

css:

body {
	overflow-x: hidden;
}

additional js file called iefix.js

function detectIE() {
	var ua = window.navigator.userAgent;
	var msie = ua.indexOf('MSIE ');
	var trident = ua.indexOf('Trident/');
	if (msie > 0) {
		return parseInt(ua.substring(msie + 5, ua.indexOf('.', msie)), 10);
	}
	if (trident > 0) {
		var rv = ua.indexOf('rv:');
		return parseInt(ua.substring(rv + 3, ua.indexOf('.', rv)), 10);
	}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
	if(detectIE()){
		fix = $(window).width()/$("body table tbody").width()*75/2;
		$("body").css("margin-left","-"+fix+"%");
	}
});
$(window).on('resize', function(){
	if(detectIE()){
		fix = $(window).width()/$("body table tbody").width()*75/2;
		$("body").css("margin-left","-"+fix+"%");
	}
});

Let's see if that works

 

Edit: Changed px to % in code

Edit2: added "-"+

Edit3: changed ,, to , just a typo

 

Should work now(just tested).

 

Better in IE, but seems to still cause a bit of an issue when re-sizing the browser window, relative to where the window is located on the screen.

 

Be back in a bit BTW, time to cut the lawn.

  • 0
  On 22/03/2014 at 21:44, Brandon Live said:

I don't understand what you're trying to do here or why you're applying a crazy hack like that in IE (especially on IE 11!). Clearly you're doing something wrong if you think that is necessary...

If it only happens on IE it's clearly a IE fault as far as I can guess and yeah the hack didn't work I just noticed :/

  On 22/03/2014 at 21:46, xendrome said:

Better in IE, but seems to still cause a bit of an issue when re-sizing the browser window, relative to where the window is located on the screen.

Just noticed too yeah.

could you remove the code so I can try making some other code instead?

  • 0
  On 22/03/2014 at 21:46, Seahorsepip said:

If it only happens on IE it's clearly a IE fault as far as I can guess and yeah the hack didn't work I just noticed :/

Just noticed too yeah.

could you remove the code so I can try making some other code instead?

 

Removed iefix.js for now.

  • 0

This might work:

css:

body {
	width: 748px;
        overflow-x: hidden;
}

js to use instead of current js:

$(document).ready(function(){
	zoom = $(window).width()/$("body table tbody").width()*100;
	document.body.style.zoom = zoom+"%";
	document.documentElement.style.zoom = "75%";
});
$(window).on('resize', function(){
	zoom = $(window).width()/$("body table tbody").width()*100;
	document.body.style.zoom = zoom+"%";
	document.documentElement.style.zoom = "75%";
});
  • 0
  On 22/03/2014 at 21:46, Seahorsepip said:

If it only happens on IE it's clearly a IE fault as far as I can guess and yeah the hack didn't work I just noticed :/

 

That's simply not true. Just because something works in one browser doesn't mean it's correct.

 

Depending on your goal, a scale transform may work better (on newer browsers like IE9+ anyway). You can set that via CSS (if you just want a fixed scale) or JS if you want to calculate the ratio dynamically. For example, something roughly like:

 

body {

    -ms-transform: scale(1.5) translateX(-25vw);

    -ms-transform-origin: top left;

    -webkit-transform: scale(1.5) translateX(-25vw);

    -webkit-transform-origin: top left;

    -moz-transform: scale(1.5) translateX(-25vw);

    -moz-transform-origin: top left;

    transform: scale(1.5) translateX(-25vw);

    transform-origin: top left;

}

 

Of course for RTL, you'd want to scale from top right and translate a positive number.

 

However, depending on your goal, you might be better off with viewport settings and just using a fixed viewport size. Then the browser will automatically calculate how to make it fit.

 

I'm wary of the notion of trying to use the window vs body size as you did. For example, IE sets a default zoom of 125% or 150% on higher DPI screens, which may throw off some of your calculations. I think that's why the jquery docs basically say not to do that with .width() on "window". But maybe it's not a problem.

 

I don't know why you need jquery for that though, you'd probably be better off just using window.innerWidth and document.body.clientWidth directly.

  • 0
  On 22/03/2014 at 22:13, Brandon Live said:

That's simply not true. Just because something works in one browser doesn't mean it's correct.

 

Depending on your goal, a scale transform may work better (on newer browsers like IE9+ anyway). You can set that via CSS (if you just want a fixed scale) or JS if you want to calculate the ratio dynamically. For example, something roughly like:

 

body {

    -ms-transform: scale(1.5) translateX(-25vw);

    -ms-transform-origin: top left;

    -webkit-transform: scale(1.5) translateX(-25vw);

    -webkit-transform-origin: top left;

    -moz-transform: scale(1.5) translateX(-25vw);

    -moz-transform-origin: top left;

    transform: scale(1.5) translateX(-25vw);

    transform-origin: top left;

}

 

Of course for RTL, you'd want to scale from top right and translate a positive number.

 

However, depending on your goal, you might be better off with viewport settings and just using a fixed viewport size. Then the browser will automatically calculate how to make it fit.

 

I'm wary of the notion of trying to use the window vs body size as you did. For example, IE sets a default zoom of 125% or 150% on higher DPI screens, which may throw off some of your calculations. I think that's why the jquery docs basically say not to do that with .width() on "window". But maybe it's not a problem.

 

I don't know why you need jquery for that though, you'd probably be better off just using window.innerWidth and document.body.clientWidth directly.

I just used jQuery because I'm lazy and your method doesn't fix the centering issue.

 

And you can better use the css zoom property then transform for compatibility.

  • 0

Can't find so quickly a method to solve your zoom problem when you want to use 75% instead of 100% :/

Gotta go now, maybe someone else finds a solution in the meantime while I'm gone else I'll see if I can find a fix tomorrow ;)

  • 0
  On 22/03/2014 at 22:15, Seahorsepip said:

I just used jQuery because I'm lazy and your method doesn't fix the centering issue.

Umm what centering issue?

 

  Quote

And you can better use the css zoom property then transform for compatibility.

CSS zoom is non-standard and has a lot of obscure side effects. That's why sites like CSS-Tricks say not to use it on production sites.

  • 0

Ok so currently I have

 

zoom.js

$(document).ready(function(){
	zoom = $(window).width()/$("body table tbody").width()*75;
	document.body.style.zoom = zoom+"%";
	document.documentElement.style.zoom = "100%";
});
$(window).on('resize', function(){
	zoom = $(window).width()/$("body table tbody").width()*75;
	document.body.style.zoom = zoom+"%";
	document.documentElement.style.zoom = "100%";
});

and the CSS

body {
font-size: 11px;
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
text-align: left;
margin: 0;
width: 755px;
overflow-x: hidden;
padding: 0
}

And the ONLY issue is it is aligning the site to the left in both IE and Chrome.

 

EDIT: Ok so changing the: width: 755px; to 1024px seems to have fixed it in IE and Chrome

Seahorsepip, whenever you get a moment, please check it on your end also and see if you find any weird layout issues :)

 

I will post back here if I find any myself.

  • 0
  On 22/03/2014 at 22:38, Brandon Live said:

Umm what centering issue?

CSS zoom is non-standard and has a lot of obscure side effects. That's why sites like CSS-Tricks say not to use it on production sites.

The content is left aligned and margin auto won't work correctly because of the transform :/

And I know zoom isn't a good fix but so is css3 transform, the best fix would be mediaqueries and making it responsive. But I guess he has a reason why he wanted it to work like this :P

  • 0
  On 23/03/2014 at 00:42, Seahorsepip said:

The content is left aligned and margin auto won't work correctly because of the transform :/

I don't understand why that would be the case. Just adjust the math for where you want to put it?

  Quote

And I know zoom isn't a good fix but so is css3 transform, the best fix would be mediaqueries and making it responsive. But I guess he has a reason why he wanted it to work like this :p

At least transform is standardized and works in most browsers. You can even do it in IE8 with the filter stuff, though I don't know if that has any limitations which would apply here.

And yeah, the whole idea of zooming a fixed layout is not a good solution for most situations. Maybe for a game or something? I know some people like to do that for Win8 games and use WinJS's ViewBox control to handle scaling it. That just does the same thing I mentioned (sets scale + translate transforms in JS after calculating the right values). It doesn't seem to have any alignment issues...

  • 0
  On 23/03/2014 at 00:35, Seahorsepip said:

Use the *100 with "body" in the js which I first posted and set body css width: 748px; and padding: 0 80px; that might work.

 

Yeah no go on that, shifts the whole page over 80px on Chrome/ IE11, so it cuts off the right side.

  On 23/03/2014 at 00:51, Brandon Live said:

I don't understand why that would be the case. Just adjust the math for where you want to put it?

 

Hey Brandon, if you'd like to take a stab at it, I can give you the URL in PM. The goal is, to have it adjust larger automatically because on high-res screens the site is very small-fixed width and makes it hard to read.

  • 0
  On 23/03/2014 at 00:57, xendrome said:

Hey Brandon, if you'd like to take a stab at it, I can give you the URL in PM. The goal is, to have it adjust larger automatically because on high-res screens the site is very small-fixed width and makes it hard to read.

Isn't that why high DPI systems default to a higher scale in the browser? (I know IE on Win7 / Win8 does this, and I think Macs do something similar at least on Retina displays)

  • 0

This idea seems flawed to me, if the site content is so small then simply zooming in probably won't have the desired effect, everything will be huge and you'll end up seeing less of the page since the content will be pushed off the bottom of the screen (Say it's a fixed 640 width viewed on a 1920x1080 screen, everything will be blown up to 3 times it's normal size, 16px body text would become 48px, etc.)

 

  On 22/03/2014 at 22:13, Brandon Live said:

...

I'm wary of the notion of trying to use the window vs body size as you did. For example, IE sets a default zoom of 125% or 150% on higher DPI screens, which may throw off some of your calculations. I think that's why the jquery docs basically say not to do that with .width() on "window". But maybe it's not a problem.

...

Yeah, it shouldn't be a problem because the browser should be returning those values in CSS pixels instead of device pixels, so they should scale with the display density (Which is also why the page should look the same between a "96dpi" screen and a "192dpi" screen, the browser/OS scales all drawing)

  • 0

We're doing quite bad practise here but whatever here's the code that should work:

 

js:

$(document).ready(function(){
	zoom = $(window).width()/$("body").outerWidth()*100;
	document.body.style.zoom = zoom+"%";
});
$(window).on('resize', function(){
	zoom = $(window).width()/$("body").outerWidth()*100;
	document.body.style.zoom = zoom+"%";
});

css:

body {
	width: 748px;
	overflow-x: hidden;
	padding: 0 80px; /* Change 80px to increase/decrease zoom size */
}
  • 0
  On 23/03/2014 at 11:10, The_Decryptor said:

"zoom" is an old IE only thing, it won't work in Firefox/Chrome/Safari/Opera/etc.

zoom: value;

Works fine on webkit browsers, ie uses -ie-zoom: value;

It should work on opera now too but it fails to work on firefox :/

 

I'll give css transforms another try even though it works not as I want right now.

  • 0

Here's a method using transforms then:

 

js for all modern browsers and IE9:

$(document).ready(function(){
	zoom = $(window).width()/$("body").outerWidth();
	$("body").css("transform","scale("+zoom+")");
        $("body").css("-ms-transform","scale("+zoom+")");
});
$(window).on('resize', function(){
	zoom = $(window).width()/$("body").outerWidth();
	$("body").css("transform","scale("+zoom+")");
        $("body").css("-ms-transform","scale("+zoom+")");
});

css:

body {
	width: 748px;
	overflow-x: hidden;
	padding: 0 80px; /* Change 80px to increase/decrease zoom size */
	transform-origin: top left;
        -ms-transform-origin: top left;
}

and js for IE8 and older:

$(document).ready(function(){
	zoom = $(window).width()/$("body").outerWidth()*100;
	document.body.style.zoom = zoom+"%";
});
$(window).on('resize', function(){
	zoom = $(window).width()/$("body").outerWidth()*100;
	document.body.style.zoom = zoom+"%";
});

IE8 js code should be put in a conditional tag like this:

<head>
<!--[if lt IE 8 ]>
<script type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function(){
	zoom = $(window).width()/$("body").outerWidth()*100;
	document.body.style.zoom = zoom+"%";
});
$(window).on('resize', function(){
	zoom = $(window).width()/$("body").outerWidth()*100;
	document.body.style.zoom = zoom+"%";
});
</script>
<![endif]-->
</head>

This should be the correct code then I suppose, though the whole scaling idea isn't great lol

  • 0
  On 23/03/2014 at 11:49, Seahorsepip said:

zoom: value;

Works fine on webkit browsers, ie uses -ie-zoom: value;

It should work on opera now too but it fails to work on firefox :/

 

I'll give css transforms another try even though it works not as I want right now.

Well that's a shame, although with the state of WebKit it's honestly not that surprising.

  • 0
  On 23/03/2014 at 12:00, Seahorsepip said:
This should be the correct code then I suppose, though the whole scaling idea isn't great lol

 

So if I do this, which I currently have active, it seems like I have to increase the padding to like 800 to get it zoomed out enough, and as I increase the padding, it shifts the whole site over. Seahorsepip, if you can, look at the live site, I have it enabled now.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I thought I could download the ringtone.
    • Foxconn to make iPhone casings in India as Apple shifts more production from China by Sagar Naresh Bhavsar It was recently reported that Donald Trump was unhappy with Tim Cook and threatened Apple with a 25% tariff if iPhones weren't produced in America. While the exact reason is unclear, some speculated that Trump's anger had to do with Cook skipping the Middle East trip with him, which was attended by other major company CEOs. Many believed that Apple came under the radar because of its plans for a $1.5 billion iPhone production plant in India. True or not, Apple is facing a tough situation as Trump has already imposed hefty tariffs on China, where the majority of iPhones are made. In a move to reduce dependence on China, Apple planned to shift its production from China to India, where tariffs are relatively lower. In line with this, a fresh report by The Economic Times suggests that Apple's iPhone assembler, Foxconn, has decided to start producing iPhone casings in India. Sources claim that a new unit is being planned at the ESR Industrial Park in Oragadam, Tamil Nadu. The area is close to the upcoming display module manufacturing plant. Until now, Tata Electronics was the one producing iPhone casings in India. However, Foxconn, which was assembling iPhones in the country at its plant in Sriperumbudur, will start making iPhone casings as well. This move suggests that Foxconn is helping Apple move more production out of China to India. Prabhu Ram, vice president, industry research group, CyberMedia Research, said, Foxconn has already ramped up its India push. The company recently started production of Apple AirPods in Hyderabad for exports and is also setting up an iPhone production plant in Bengaluru. Casings only make up about 2-3% of the total iPhone cost, making them locally helps Apple reduce costs, and also helps avoid hefty tariffs.
    • I loved the initial compact Start Menu present in Windows 10. It was tiny, awesome and super fast without any Store apps clutter.
    • BBC threatens Perplexity with legal action over content scraping by Paul Hill Image via Depositphotos.com The UK’s public broadcaster, BBC, has written a letter to Perplexity, the AI search startup, asking it to stop scraping articles from its websites, delete existing copies of content, and propose some sort of financial compensation if it would like to carry on scraping data. If the demands are not met, BBC may seek an injunction against the startup citing alleged misuse of its intellectual property. BBC is probably responding in this way because it has seen other news organizations cement deals with firms like OpenAI and Mistral. The income stream allows news organizations to raise more funds and also cover the costs of the extra load on their servers caused by AI scraping. For anybody not familiar with Perplexity, it’s a bit like ChatGPT but has a much stronger emphasis on searching the web to find information. You can ask it anything you want to know about and it very quickly searches online and constructs a specific response to your question based on what it has found. The company offers many of its features for free, but does have Perplexity Pro, which costs money. Essentially, Perplexity is making money from publishers by using their content to improve its own product, but not paying them all. Perplexity's defense and existing publisher programs In a statement to the Financial Times, Perplexity labeled the BBC’s claims as "manipulative and opportunistic". The startup accused the broadcaster of having “a fundamental misunderstanding of technology, the internet and intellectual property law.” This is not the first time Perplexity has had a run-in with the media. Forbes and Wired accused it of plagiarizing content from their websites and The New York Times sent the company a cease and desist notice to stop using its content for AI purposes. To assuage publishers, Perplexity has set up a revenue sharing program, which includes TIME, Fortune, Der Spiegel, and others. According to Digiday, the revenue share was up to 25%. It’s not clear if BBC has tried engaging through this avenue or if it wants to try to squeeze the startup for a bigger slice. The escalating battle over AI and intellectual property Even if you only keep up with AI developments in passing, you’ll likely have seen that AI models need to be trained on vast amounts of data, much of which is copyrighted. There is an ongoing debate about whether these companies should be allowed to train on this data, or first seek out permission from the copyright holders. The move from the BBC could spur other publishers on to try and get themselves a better deal from Perplexity. Alternatively, Perplexity could remove BBC content from its platform and stop pulling information from there. It could probably find most of the information elsewhere, but if Perplexity tried to pull this too much it would eventually end up pretty useless with not a lot of content. Overall, this is just one of many ongoing legal issues surrounding AI, but once a conclusion has been reached, it could set a precedent about how AI companies should go about getting content from publishers. Source: FT via Reuters
    • No, it's in fact not always there. You have to enable the FPS overlay first, either in Steam general settings or in the.... Steam Overlay... which is Shift+Tab. And what is that? A keyboard shortcut
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      KynanSEIT earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      gowtham07 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Collaborator
      lethalman went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Week One Done
      Wayne Robinson earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Karan Khanna earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      678
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      274
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      220
    4. 4
      +FloatingFatMan
      171
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      160
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!