I am guessing no, but it would be really sweet to be able to set the z-index of the cursor with CSS or Javascript.
Let's say you've got some buttons and you want to add a semi-transparent image on top of the buttons for effect. Or in my current case, some SVG paths that have hover and click actions. If I could set the button or SVG z-index to 0, my cursor's z-index to 1 and the image overlays z-index to 2, that would be pretty sweet! The mouse would be going under the overlay and still be able to click on the buttons. It would be even more spectacular to set the visual z-index (which layer the cursor appears to be), separate from the effective z-index (which layer the cursor actually is). So the cursor could appear to be on top of the overlay, but still be able to click on the buttons underneath.
I have my doubts, but I thought I would check if anyone has heard of someone doing this or something like it.
Since no answer has been accepted, I want offer the right answer.
The pointer-events: none is the solution.
See simple CSS example:
.emotion_message {
pointer-events: none;
background-color: rgb(144,238,144,0.5);
height: 20%;
width: 94%;
position: absolute;
top: 40%;
color: darkgreen;
padding: 1%;
text-align: center;
border-radius: 10px;
margin-left:3%;
margin-right:3%;
}
In this example, I wanted to display a chart, with a static summary box over the top, but I wanted the cursor to interact with the chart underneath. I also added opacity to the background-color, so the user can both see and interact with the submerged element (in this case the chart). Now the user sees the box, but the cursor does not.
Thanks #FabricioMatte for this answer in the comments.
You can play with the cursor:none;
See a related Q: Is it possible to put the mouse cursor behind an element or does the mouse cursor have an z-index?
There is no such thing as a cursor z-index.. what you can do is have a jQuery hover function that gets the object that the cursor is hovering over, which in return allows you to find the objects z-index. So really instead of wanting a cursor to have z-indexes, just have hover states.
Then have custom cursors depending on location. Which as everyone is saying cursor:none would be fun to play with for this. Say you want to go under a alpha block, you could just render a cursor under that alpha block to get the effect of the cursor being under it.
Related
Currently programming a web application that is a rendition of the Board Game Splendor for educational purposes. Right now I'm getting into the part of my coding where we will be handling events.
I'm looking to be able to have the user hover over the cards in the middle and have it dim displaying the word BUY at the top half and RESERVE at the bottom half. Then while hovering over the whole card the user can click either BUY or RESERVE depending on what they want to do.
My assumption right now of how to handle this would be to have a mouseover event in JavaScript for the whole div that contains the card image, and then to have two divs on top of that div (One for the top half and one for the bottom half) that each have separate click events since each will function differently.
I guess I'm wondering, will that be a problem since technically the whole card div will be beneath those two divs? And should I be looking to solve this problem with a different approach in the code? (I can't use things like jQuery in my project either, just HTML CSS and JS)
I would solve the problem using css, specifically using the :hover modifier. The BUY and RESERVE buttons would have display:none, but once you hover over the parent element, in this case the card, you can change to display: block. You can use both the z-index and position css properties to position both buttons anywhere on the card. For example
.card:hover {
position: relative;
z-index: 1;
.buy, .reserve { display: block; }
}
.buy, .reserve {
position: absolute;
z-index: 2;
display: none;
}
With html
<div class='card'>
<div class='buy'></div>
<div class='reserve'></div>
</div>
The two buttons that you are placing on top of each card can have CSS opacity elements on it's background-color property such as rgba(0,0,0,0.5) that allows the rest of the card to show underneath the two button divs and become partially transparent.
As for click events, you're right, the card itself will not be able to be clicked. However, you can access the card itself via event.target.parentNode in order to find what card you are clicking as well as manipulate the card itself on click.
I have an element which is acting as a button with a little Javascript and CSS. I'll strip it down to the most bare example, so you can see the problem. The issue originates from the fact that the element is scaled down when it's clicked. Javascript interprets the clickable area of the button as its scaled down size, not the original size. This occurs in all modern desktop browsers.
Here are the important parts. HTML:
<div id="refresh">more</div>
CSS:
#refresh {
background-color: #FFF;
cursor: pointer;
transition: all 150ms ease-out;
}
#refresh:active {
transform: scale(0.8);
}
JS:
var refreshBtn = document.getElementById("refresh");
function newImg() {
// updates an image elsewhere
}
// an event listener based on
// http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2005/10/_and_the_winner_1.html
addEvent(refreshBtn, 'click', newImg);
So my image gets updated when I click on the area occupied by the scaled down button, defined by transform: scale(0.8). If I click outside of that area, in the outer 20% of my button, my JS does not update the image. The proper click transitions occur and the cursor displays correctly as a pointer, but the JS does not count this area as part of the onclick event.
This was covered here, but I find the solution unappealing:
Non-clickable area on transforming anchor
The same solution is offered here:
increasing clickable area of a button
Here's the CSS I used as outlined in those answers:
#refresh:before {
position: absolute;
content: '';
top: -12%;
right: -12%;
left: -12%;
bottom: -12%;
}
These ensure that Javascript now recognizes a bigger clickable area instead of the scaled-down area, but in turn the pointer and the CSS hover effects now react to hovering and clicking well outside the original button element. I consider it an ugly solution. Surely someone else has run into this problem before. Are there any nicer solutions?
Update: Here is a jsfiddle of the situation I've explained: http://jsfiddle.net/cx9ur44e/4/
To solve the issue of the size, you would need to add the click even to a wrapper of the button that will keep the size even if the button is active.
<div id="wrapper>
<div id="refresh">more</div>
</div>
I have two div banners that have corresponding CSS arrows. When the banners are clicked, the javascript toggles between revealing and hiding the text underneath. Likewise, the respective arrows rotate down when the text is revealed and back up when the text is hidden.
Now, I want my first div banner to be revealed automatically when the page first loads. However, when I drew my CSS arrows, due to the padding of the div, I can't get the arrow in the first div to be the same as the arrow in the subsequent div(s) and line up properly.
http://jsfiddle.net/nVuQ2/1/
I've tried messing with the placement of the arrow:
.tri0 {
margin-left: 20px;
margin-top: 5px;
}
but the best I can do is push the tri0 arrow up to the padding of the h3 tag and it won't go any farther.
Is there a way that I can set a toggle flag in the toggleClass to make it say that the first div banner is already toggled and subsequent clicks make it un-toggle?
Your issue happens because of the border of your tris elements. You are displaying different borders in each one of your elements, this will make them appear in different ways.
So basically I set them with the same borders values, the same rotation, and when your page first load it toggles your div and show your first message.
Note that is not necessary to have two different classes to toggle your element state, once that they are equal.
Check in the Fiddle.
Not sure if this is the solution that you wanted. But I hope that helps you.
Thanks.
Try using absolute positioning instead of floating, this way you can ensure the arrows are always aligned in the middle. You'd set parent div to position:relative, and arrows to position:absolute;
The code will look like this -
.slide0, .slide1 {
position:relative;
}
.tri0, .tri1 {
position:absolute;
top:0;
bottom:0;
margin:auto 0;
}
.tri0 {
right:5px;
}
.tri1 {
right:10px;
}
EDIT: Whoops, I realised I didn't compensate for the rotated arrow. Because the 10px border makes it effectively 10px wide, position .tri1 with right:10px instead. Updated code above, and update fiddle here.
Updated Fiddle
I'm working on a web app where I have an image, and, for lack of a better word, a "view" of that image which is a box limiting what you can see to whatever part of the image is inside the box. The view can be adjusted by dragging the edges around, and the image is stays. However, I also want to be able to drag both the view and the image around together.
The best analogy I can think of is the Snipping Tool in Windows that you use to capture a portion of your screen.
I've tried a div with a background image, but that always resizes the image to fit the div. Right now I'm trying to have a div that contains an img, and setting the div to have overflow:hidden, but that makes the image stick to the upper left corner of the div.
Help? Thanks in advance!
Sounds like you want something that masks the image and only shows a segment.
Assuming a structure like.
<div class="img-mask">
<img>
</div>
You can set the styles of the mask to be overflow hidden with a width and a height (this creates the mask). Then position the image relatively, left and top till it's where you want it to be.
.img-mask {
overflow: hidden;
height: 200px;
width: 200px;
}
.img-mask img {
position: relative;
top: -25%;
left: -25%;
}
This should center the image to the mask.
I think there's a CSS property cut out for exactly this task: the clip attribute.
Here's the W3schools tutorial: http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/pr_pos_clip.asp. Click the Try it Yourself button to get a hands-on idea.
With this the CSS property applies only on the image and you do not need an additional masking div.
I remember reading somewhere (a long time ago) that sprites - or at least I think that's what they were called - were better than using two images when you were trying to change an image on hover. I believe the reasoning was something to do with not having a delay. For example sometimes I'll go to a website and go to click on a link and for a split second there's no image there... it's blank... before the second one shows up. Isn't that because the second image has to load first? If that's the case wouldn't "sprites" be better?
Now which ever way is the better approach I'd like to take. Basically, I have a form button I want to change with an image... and when hovered over I want it to change.
I googled and found out doing something like <input type="image" ...> would work, but than other people were saying that's not the right way yady yady ya.
So how should I do it? Sprites or separate images? And most importantly, how can I do it?
Many thanks,
The Novice.
Yes spirits are better in terms of performance/bandwidth, you should have a look at:
CSS Sprites: Useful Technique, or Potential Nuisance?
CSS Sprites: What They Are, Why They’re Cool, and How To Use Them
Saving Bandwidth and Improving Site Speed Using CSS Sprites
Also have a look at:
CSS Sprite Generators
CSS Sprites are the way to go, else you'd have to "preload" your hover image.
Let's assume your button is 100px wide and 20px high.
Create a new 100px by 40px image, placing your "default" state image on the top, and your "hover" state image on the bottom.
Then in your HTML, create your button.
<input type="button" class="submit" />
Apply your new image as a background on the button element.
.submit {
display: inline-block;
width: 100px;
height: 20px;
border: 0;
background: url(button_bg.gif) no-repeat top;
}
Then simply change the position of the background image on the hover state.
.submit {
background-position: bottom;
}
Your hover image would have already been loaded, so there won't be any delay.
Have fun!