What arrangement works best for combining flexbox with images?

Question

What arrangement works best for combining flexbox with images?

I'm finding it challenging to grasp the various image size settings in Flexbox. It seems like every time I try to apply them, I end up with a different outcome.

Instead of just saying "it depends on the situation," can someone provide a logical explanation that connects these different scenarios? I want to understand why the results vary each time, particularly in terms of image placement based on viewport size. Let's assume I am using object-fit: cover for all cases. Here's an example featuring two images side by side.

index.html

<section>
        <figure>
                <img src="profile image1.jpg" alt="">

        </figure>
        <figure>
                <img src="profile image2.jpg" alt="">
        </figure>
</section>

style.css

section {
  display: flex;
}

Scenario 1

style.css

/* set the figure wrapper's dimensions only */
figure {
  flex: 50%;
  width: 100%;
  height: auto;
}

Scenario 2

style.css

/* set both the figure wrapper and image dimensions as percentages */
figure {
  flex: 50%;
  width: 100%;
  height: auto;
}

img {
  width: 100%;
  height: 100%;
}

Scenario 3

style.css

/* set both the figure wrapper and image dimensions in pixels */
figure {
  flex: 50%;
  width: 400px;
  height: 400px;
}

img {
  width: 400px;
  height: 400px;
}

Scenario 4

style.css

/* set the figure's dimensions with max-width and max-height */
figure {
  flex: 50%;
  max-width: 400px;
  max-height: 400px;
}

img {
  width: 100%;
  height: 100%;
}

Scenario 5

style.css

/* set both the figure and image dimensions with max-width and max-height */
figure {
  flex: 50%;
  max-width: 400px;
  max-height: 400px;
}

img {
  max-width: 100%;
  max-height: 100%;
}

I am trying to understand the advantages of placing the image within a container with varying configurations of pixel or percentage dimension units.

html css flexbox

Answer 1

Answer №1

When the image width is not set (scenario #1), it will default to its original dimensions, potentially causing it to overflow the page. This behavior disregards any wrapper configuration.
Setting the img width to 100% forces it to fit within its container, triggering flex configurations to take effect.
In scenario #2, setting the flex item's width to 100% may result in shrinking unless explicitly prevented with flex-shrink: 0.
According to Flexbox specifications, when flex-wrap is nowrap, items are assigned equal width by default. With two figures in a section, each figure may end up occupying 50% of the container width.
The outcome is that the images will resize to fill their respective containers, appearing side by side.
Specifying a fixed width for the figure element as a flex item may be overridden by browser calculations based on flex-grow and flex-shrink. Allowing flexible resizing can keep items in a single line layout.
In scenario #3, where flex-basis is set at 50%, the specified width may be ignored in favor of fitting elements next to each other while ensuring image tags conform to container width.
Scenarios #4 and #5 involve setting max-width for figure items, which overrides calculated widths. If the calculated width exceeds the max-width, the final width will adjust accordingly.

Answer 2

When the image width is not set (scenario #1), it will default to its original dimensions, potentially causing it to overflow the page. This behavior disregards any wrapper configuration.
Setting the img width to 100% forces it to fit within its container, triggering flex configurations to take effect.
In scenario #2, setting the flex item's width to 100% may result in shrinking unless explicitly prevented with flex-shrink: 0.
According to Flexbox specifications, when flex-wrap is nowrap, items are assigned equal width by default. With two figures in a section, each figure may end up occupying 50% of the container width.
The outcome is that the images will resize to fill their respective containers, appearing side by side.
Specifying a fixed width for the figure element as a flex item may be overridden by browser calculations based on flex-grow and flex-shrink. Allowing flexible resizing can keep items in a single line layout.
In scenario #3, where flex-basis is set at 50%, the specified width may be ignored in favor of fitting elements next to each other while ensuring image tags conform to container width.
Scenarios #4 and #5 involve setting max-width for figure items, which overrides calculated widths. If the calculated width exceeds the max-width, the final width will adjust accordingly.

Answer 3

Answer №2

Scenario 1
- The images are displayed at their natural size. If they are smaller than the flexboxes, they align to the left or their respective flexbox like text, creating two columns. However, if they are larger, they will overflow. It is not recommended due to potential overflow issues.
- flex: 50% is a shorthand for
```
flex-basis: 50%; flex-grow: 1; flex-shrink: 1
```
  . The figures have both a flex-basis and a width, but only the flex-basis is considered. This means that the algorithm first creates the figures at 50% of the width of their parent, then either grows or shrinks them evenly to fit the parent. Regardless, the images will likely overflow if they are too large.
Scenario 2
- Similar to Scenario 1, setting width: 100% on the figure is unnecessary.
- If you give the images both a height and width, they will stretch to fill their parent. It is advisable to only set width, allowing the height of the image to adjust automatically while respecting the aspect ratio.
Scenario 3
- The specified width and height of 400px on the figure are ignored because flex: 50% sets the flex-basis as a priority.
- The image is stretched to be exactly 400px by 400px, which could result in horizontal overflow.
Scenario 4
- The figures are constrained from growing beyond 400px width, so if 50% of their parent exceeds that limit, they will remain at 400px wide. With no defined height and children having relative height of 100%, their height is capped at 400px. Further insights on this behavior are welcome in the comments section.
- The images are stretched to completely fill the flexbox, losing their original aspect ratio in the process.
Scenario 5
- The figures behave similarly to scenario 4.
- The images maintain their original size unless they are wider than the parent figures, in which case they are resized down. Setting both max-width and max-height may lead to distortion of the original aspect ratio during resizing.

Additional Recommendation

To avoid unnecessary growth of figures, especially when styling and adding legends to images, consider the following example:

section {
  display: flex;
}
figure {
  background-color: #dca;
  padding: 20px;
}
img {
  max-width: 100%;
}

<!-- PS: the width and height attributes on img tags emulate actual image size -->
<section>
  <figure>
    <img width="200" height="100" alt="">
    <legend>Fig. 1</legend>
  </figure>
  <figure>
    <img width="400" height="100" alt="">
    <legend>Fig. 2</legend>
  </figure>
</section>

The default flex-styles for any element are:

flex-grow: 0;      /* do not grow */
flex-shrink: 1;    /* shrink automatically to fit parent */
flex-basis: auto;  /* determine size based on content */

In cases where neat column fitting is required, applying flex: 50% to a wrapper around the figure elements might prove beneficial. Adding background colors to elements during testing can also aid in understanding layout behaviors.

Answer 4

Scenario 1
- The images are displayed at their natural size. If they are smaller than the flexboxes, they align to the left or their respective flexbox like text, creating two columns. However, if they are larger, they will overflow. It is not recommended due to potential overflow issues.
- flex: 50% is a shorthand for
```
flex-basis: 50%; flex-grow: 1; flex-shrink: 1
```
  . The figures have both a flex-basis and a width, but only the flex-basis is considered. This means that the algorithm first creates the figures at 50% of the width of their parent, then either grows or shrinks them evenly to fit the parent. Regardless, the images will likely overflow if they are too large.
Scenario 2
- Similar to Scenario 1, setting width: 100% on the figure is unnecessary.
- If you give the images both a height and width, they will stretch to fill their parent. It is advisable to only set width, allowing the height of the image to adjust automatically while respecting the aspect ratio.
Scenario 3
- The specified width and height of 400px on the figure are ignored because flex: 50% sets the flex-basis as a priority.
- The image is stretched to be exactly 400px by 400px, which could result in horizontal overflow.
Scenario 4
- The figures are constrained from growing beyond 400px width, so if 50% of their parent exceeds that limit, they will remain at 400px wide. With no defined height and children having relative height of 100%, their height is capped at 400px. Further insights on this behavior are welcome in the comments section.
- The images are stretched to completely fill the flexbox, losing their original aspect ratio in the process.
Scenario 5
- The figures behave similarly to scenario 4.
- The images maintain their original size unless they are wider than the parent figures, in which case they are resized down. Setting both max-width and max-height may lead to distortion of the original aspect ratio during resizing.

Additional Recommendation

To avoid unnecessary growth of figures, especially when styling and adding legends to images, consider the following example:

section {
  display: flex;
}
figure {
  background-color: #dca;
  padding: 20px;
}
img {
  max-width: 100%;
}

<!-- PS: the width and height attributes on img tags emulate actual image size -->
<section>
  <figure>
    <img width="200" height="100" alt="">
    <legend>Fig. 1</legend>
  </figure>
  <figure>
    <img width="400" height="100" alt="">
    <legend>Fig. 2</legend>
  </figure>
</section>

The default flex-styles for any element are:

flex-grow: 0;      /* do not grow */
flex-shrink: 1;    /* shrink automatically to fit parent */
flex-basis: auto;  /* determine size based on content */

In cases where neat column fitting is required, applying flex: 50% to a wrapper around the figure elements might prove beneficial. Adding background colors to elements during testing can also aid in understanding layout behaviors.

What arrangement works best for combining flexbox with images?

Answer №1

Answer №2

Additional Recommendation

Similar questions

Overrides of variables are not always complete

Can you explain the distinction between using .classA versus .classB.classA when styling with CSS?

What is the correct way to maintain focus on a nested scrolling div over another scrolling div with jQuery?

A chosen class containing a nested class that utilizes the makeStyles function

What is the best way to enable CSS IntelliSense for a Nuxt project?

Incorporate zoom feature into the jQuery polaroid gallery

CSS Duo-Toned Background

using jquery to select elements based on their data attribute values

Utilizing anchor tags within the title attribute

What steps do I need to take to make this JavaScript code function properly? How can I create a carbon copy email setup in

Modifying text input in Angular

adjustable text size in web view interface

Would adjusting the font sizes of headings be crossing into grey or black hat SEO territory?

analyzing information from a variety of HTML tables

Using jQuery's toggle function with a double click event to change the display to none

The code snippet $(this).nextAll("#...").eq(0).text("***") isn't functioning as expected

Variances in the order of HTML elements within an article's layout

Persistent button positioned at the bottom of the page, remaining visible even when scrolling to the very end of the content

Phonegap application functioning smoothly on computer, encountering issues on mobile device

Tips for changing the color of an underline in an <a> tag when it is hovered over