• 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

    • Personally I use Chrome however I have Edge and Firefox installed as I inherently still test my websites in multiple browsers thanks to the IE era...
    • That I cannot do, for validity is the basis of use; I have licenses only for Home and Pro.
    • Is Polaroid's Now 3rd Gen camera worth the $99.99 price drop? by Paul Hill For at least a decade there has been a nostalgic feeling gripping people in response to the digitization of everything. We’ve seen this mainly in products like vinyl, and even apps like Slowly that make you wait before your friends receive your “letter”. Another such product trying to capitalize on nostalgia is the Polaroid Now 3rd Generation camera. For a limited time, you can pick it up for just $99.99, instead of $119.99. If you are still searching for a gift for Father’s Day, taking advantage of this limited-time deal would be our suggestion. The Polaroid Now 3rd Generation is available in several colors but only four - Black, Coral, Purple, and Yellow - are available for $99.99, and they all look great. While there is certainly nothing wrong with snapping photos on your phone and storing them in the cloud, you do lose out on the tactileness of a photograph that you get with the Polaroid Now 3rd Generation. Additionally, in recent years, Google has been nagging everyone that their Google Photos storage is about to run out, urging you to delete photos or pay to upgrade, in future clean ups, you might accidentally delete a photo you really wanted to keep, you can’t do that as easily with hard-copy photograph. What it does (and doesn’t) With the 3rd generation of Polaroid Now, you get several improvements over the predecessor. There is a better light meter, upgraded two-lens autofocus, a built-in tripod mount, photo filter compatibility, a self-timer to take snaps with yourself included, and double-exposure modes. This camera remains faithful to the iconic Polaroid design but comes with new colors, four of which are now $99.99 for a limited time. Environmentalism has become all the rage in recent years and consumers want stuff that’s produced more responsibly; to this end, Polaroid has used 40% recycled materials to reduce waste and improve the product’s carbon footprint. The Polaroid Now 3rd Generation uses Polaroid i-Type Film and 600 Film, both of which are sold separately. The cost of the film is probably the biggest issue with this product, it’s priced at $17.99 per 8-pack, so you’re definitely going to want to be mindful about the shots you take. You can cut the cost by buying in bulk. Some of the reviewers were also disappointed with the low-light shots they took indoors. If you are planning to take indoor shots, then be mindful about what other people have said. Outdoors, everything seems in order. The two-lens autofocus system mentioned earlier is a key new feature of this camera. The system combines two fixed focus zones with one lens covering distances from 0.40 meters to 1.3 meters, and the other covering from 1.0 meter to infinity. The camera then automatically switches lenses depending on the best one for the shot. With the self-timer, you can now set up the Polaroid Now 3rd Generation on a tripod and join in with a group photo, or just take a shot of yourself. The double exposure feature lets you layer two images on one piece of film to bring out your creativity to create visually striking and unexpected results. How it compares At this discounted price, the Polaroid Now 3rd Generation is the same price as the 2nd Generation model, but gets newer features. It should also be stated that there’s a Polaroid Now+ 3rd Generation which you can connect to your phone to control with an app, but it’s priced higher. If you’re just looking for a camera that doesn’t complicate things, then the Polaroid Now 3rd Generation is the ideal model. You get the new hardware features, but don’t need to worry about extra connectivity. Who it’s right for The Polaroid Now 3rd Generation is ideal for casual photographers, those looking to snap memories to tangible film, gift-givers looking to buy a parent a Father’s Day gift, or those who love the classic Polaroid aesthetic and want it on a shelf somewhere for decorative purposes. While the camera is now priced well at $99.99, buyers need to consider the on-going cost of the film, which can add up. For anyone who hasn’t used a film camera before, it’s also important for me to point out that prints take a bit of time to develop, some users have also complained about the low-light performance when indoors. If you’re looking for snapping retro outdoor shots, the Polaroid Now 3rd Generation is definitely worth your consideration! Polaroid Now 3rd Generation (Black): $99.99 (Amazon US) - MSRP $119.99 / 17% off Polaroid Now 3rd Generation (Coral): $99.99 (Amazon US) - MSRP $119.99 / 17% off Polaroid Now 3rd Generation (Purple): $99.99 (Amazon US) - MSRP $119.99 / 17% off Polaroid Now 3rd Generation (Yellow): $99.99 (Amazon US) - MSRP $119.99 / 17% off This Amazon deal is US-specific and not available in other regions unless specified. If you don't like it or want to look at more options, check out the Amazon US deals page here. Get Prime (SNAP), Prime Video, Audible Plus or Kindle / Music Unlimited. Free for 30 days. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      m10d earned a badge
      First Post
    • Conversation Starter
      DarkShrunken earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      jrromero17 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      jrromero17 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Conversation Starter
      johnwin1 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      251
    2. 2
      snowy owl
      157
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      140
    4. 4
      +FloatingFatMan
      139
    5. 5
      Xenon
      128
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!