• 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

    • PicView 3.1.4 by Razvan Serea PicView is a fast, free and fully customizable image viewer for Windows 10 and 11. It supports a vast range of image file types, including WEBP, GIF, SVG, PNG, JXL, HEIC, PSD and many others. Additional features includes viewing EXIF metadata, image compression, batch resizing, viewing images within archives and comic books, image effects, image galleries, and more. Available in portable and installable versions. PicView 3.1.4 changelog: What's new Mouse Side Buttons Customization: You can now change how the mouse side buttons work. Choose to navigate file history or switch between directories. Find this setting under the Mouse tab in the settings window (#199). Improvements Directory Navigation: Improved navigation between directories. If Search subdirectories is enabled, PicView moves to the next directory in the list; if off (or if there are no directories in the list), it navigates as before. PicView now remembers your startup directory (including subdirectories) and restores it on the next launch. Performance: Preloader has been fine-tuned for better performance and lower memory usage. Bug Fixes Fixed incorrect saved settings path when saving in portable mode (#213). Corrected cases where keybindings and file history were not saved when there was no write permission. Restoring the window from a maximized state now correctly keeps its position when auto-fit is enabled. Fixed start-up menu text alignment and missing text issues. Translations Hebrew translation by @Y-PLONI (#212) Hungarian translation by @JohnFowler58 (#209) Japanese update by @coolvitto (#214) Miscellaneous Updated to Avalonia 11.3.1. Now using ZLinq and ZLinq.FileSystem to reduce memory allocation and possibly improve performance. Future versions managed via Scoop will now preserve configuration files (#15555). Experimental settings (not yet available in the UI—edit UserSettings.json directly): Disable the file watcher (not recommended, untested). Choose preload amount and direction (forward/backward). Download: PicView 3.1.4 | Portable ~50.0 MB (Open Source) Download: PicView ARM64 | Portable ARM64 Links: PicView Home Page | Github Project Page | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • The design looks good on their phones, but I can't say that I like the look of these.
    • AMD preps Ryzen 9600X3D for those who want a taste of the fastest gaming CPU for cheap by Sayan Sen AMD desktop processors are available across two platforms: socket AM4 and socket AM5. Both of these sockets are still going pretty strong, and the company is offering deals and discounts for both as it continues to release new SKUs for its older platform. For example, the company launched an affordable X3D processor for AM4 this month with the new 5500X3D. These gaming CPUs from AMD have been a massive success, as both AM4 and AM5 X3D chips are quite popular among gamers, and for good reason, too. They are fast, very fast. The massive chunk of vertical 3D stacked last-level cache (LLC) Level 3 cache helps these processors a ton in scenarios such as gaming. In our Ryzen 9 9950X3D review, we saw that 300+ frames per second are possible depending on the game title. While we did not review the 8-core 9800X3D, it has been found to be even slightly faster than the 9950X3D and is currently the most powerful gaming CPU on the planet. The Ryzen 9 9800X3D is selling these days for around $440-$500, and that may still be out of budget for many users. As such, similar to the 5600X3D, which is a 6-core 5000X3D processor cut down from the 8-core 5800X3D, AMD is planning to launch a hexacore Ryzen 5 9600X3D that will have two cores disabled compared to the 9800X3D. The information has been uncovered from the recent system integrator (SI) graphics driver for the recently launched Radeon AI PRO R9700 discrete GPU. The driver (Windows SI Driver for Radeon AI PRO R9700, Version 25.10.13.01) confirms the existence of 9600X3D as well as a 9600 non-X SKU and several other Ryzen PRO 9000 CPUs. The full list of upcoming CPUs is given below: Ryzen 5 9600X3D Ryzen 5 9600 AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 Ryzen 5 PRO 9645 Ryzen 5 PRO 9400 In terms of specs, the core configuration of the 9600X3D will be identical to the Ryzen 9600X and 9600, barring things like clock speeds. However, the six-core X3D will have a lot more L3 cache at 96 MB vs 32 MB on the 9600X and 9600. There is no information on pricing at the moment. Source: AMD (spotted by Mellodic Warrior on X)
    • With the dwindling number of TV license payers the BBC has to look for alternative avenues for income.
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      681
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      275
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      221
    4. 4
      +FloatingFatMan
      170
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      164
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!