Actually, come to think of it, the fact that my burger menu doesn’t scroll makes the bottom menu item in the window the de facto bottom of my menu, so that preventDefault error triggering as soon as I try to scroll makes sense (vis-à-vis your demo menu), so it’s probably an irrelevant error.

Hi Ismael!

Thanks so much for the suggestion! That did the trick, i.e. replacing “auto” with “hidden” in that line. It hid both x & y scrollbars in Firefox & Safari, and the y scrollbar in Chrome. I don’t know why they started appearing now whereas months ago the “auto” there worked fine; but who am I to complain at this point, since I want to publish this website once and for all. All good.

By the way, I don’t know why the scrollbar(s) only appeared for you on hover, and very thin, when for me in all browsers on the Mac & PC they appeared without hovering. Oh well, all’s well. You can close the thread.

Thanks again,
Gary

Oh, and I also turned off all my plugins, but it didn’t help.

Thanks very much for your suggestion, Mike. It helped me look quite deeply into this issue using Chrome’s debugger. I want to first apologise to you for keeping things so complicated using my in-development home page, which is quite complicated, instead of creating a test page for this topic question–which is exactly what I did to debug this issue after your reply.

It turns out that the stackoverflow suggestion doesn’t work. Their suggestion is to add itemOpts.index = index; before the mfp._openClick({mfpEl:items}, jqEl, itemOpts); line as follows:

$.fn.magnificPopup = function(options) {
	_checkInstance();

	var jqEl = $(this);

	// We call some API method of first param is a string
	if (typeof options === "string" ) {

		if(options === 'open') {
			var items,
				itemOpts = _isJQ ? jqEl.data('magnificPopup') : jqEl[0].magnificPopup,
				index = parseInt(arguments[1], 10) || 0;

			if(itemOpts.items) {
				items = itemOpts.items[index];
			} else {
				items = jqEl;
				if(itemOpts.delegate) {
					items = items.find(itemOpts.delegate);
				}
				items = items.eq( index );
			}
			itemOpts.index = index;  // Added line per https://stackoverflow.com/questions/49131727/open-all-images-on-page-with-magnific-popup
			mfp._openClick({mfpEl:items}, jqEl, itemOpts);
		} else {
			if(mfp.isOpen)
				mfp[options].apply(mfp, Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1));
		}

	} else {
		// clone options obj
		options = $.extend(true, {}, options);

		/*
		 * As Zepto doesn't support .data() method for objects
		 * and it works only in normal browsers
		 * we assign "options" object directly to the DOM element. FTW!
		 */
		if(_isJQ) {
			jqEl.data('magnificPopup', options);
		} else {
			jqEl[0].magnificPopup = options;
		}

		mfp.addGroup(jqEl, options);

	}
	return jqEl;
};

The problem is that that bug fix never even gets to run because it’s encapsulated within the IF condition of typeof options === “string”, as you can see above. So if you look at BOTH:

(1) us Enfold users:

links.not(options.exclude).addClass('lightbox-added')
.magnificPopup($.avia_utilities.av_popup);

where $.avia_utilities.av_popup === {type: ‘image’, mainClass: ‘avia-popup mfp-zoom-in’, tLoading: ”, tClose: ”, removalDelay: 300, …}

(2) and the Original Poster to that stackoverflow thread:

$('#content').magnificPopup({
  items: $imgs,
  type: 'image',
  gallery: {
    enabled: true
  },
});

you can see that typeof options === “object”! So it wouldn’t work for either of us (the OP coincidentally was wanting to do the exact same thing as me, to “enable magnific popup on all images on my page”). Unfortunately, the OP never responded to the reply person’s bug fix suggestion, so the thread never went further in order to highlight the failure of the suggestion for the OP.

After ruling out magnific’s code as the culprit of my problem, I focused on avia-snippet-lightbox.js and its code at the end of its function, $.fn.avia_activate_lightbox = function(variables):

return this.each(function()
{
    var container	= $(this),
        videos		= $(options.videoElements, this).not(options.exclude).addClass('mfp-iframe'), /*necessary class for the correct lightbox markup*/
        ajaxed		= ! container.is('body') && ! container.is('.ajax_slide');
        for( var i = 0; i < options.groups.length; i++ )
        {
            container.find(options.groups[i]).each(function()
            {
                var links = $(options.autolinkElements, this);

                if( ajaxed )
                {
                    links.removeClass('lightbox-added');
                }

                links.not(options.exclude).addClass('lightbox-added').magnificPopup($.avia_utilities.av_popup);
            });
        }

});

Sure enough, this is the culprit. What’s happening in this code above is that:

(1) the outer loop, controlled by the FOR loop, searches the <body> DOM for each class in the options object (.avia-slideshow, .avia-gallery, .av-horizontal-gallery, .av-instagram-pics, .portfolio-preview-page, .portfolio-preview-content, .isotope, .post-entry, .sidebar, #main, .main-menu, & .woocommerce-product-gallery); and if it finds the current options[i] in the <body> DOM, then:

(2) the inner loop, controlled by “.each(function()”, looks for every instance of that options[i] in body and adds the images within that sub-DOM instance to the links object “array”. In other words, it creates multiple lightboxes per page–and, in fact, NOT JUST a separate one for each options[i] image set (from the outer loop), BUT ALSO a separate lightbox for each instance of options[i] as well.

But I want a single lightbox for all linked images on a page, i.e. a single image set that is sent to magnific. Specifically, for me, options[7]===’.post-entry’ is not only found in outer 1/1, 1/2, etc. layout sections, in which I may put images, but also in Color Sections, in which I will definitely put images, perhaps in inner 1/1, 1/2, etc. layout sections within the Color Sections. It’s the Color Section that ends up separating out ‘.post-entry’ images from each other, creating multiple image sets sent to magnific for separate lightboxes (notice the <div class=’post-entry post-entry-type-page post-entry-31′> line):

<div class='avia-section av-lib3uyi7-57ce06e0452ac92eb7d4393a8384e180 main_color avia-section-default avia-no-border-styling  avia-builder-el-62  el_after_av_section  el_before_av_section  mainPageBodyThreeCols avia-bg-style-scroll container_wrap fullsize'  >
    <div class='container av-section-cont-open' >
        <div class='template-page content  av-content-full alpha units'>
            <div class='post-entry post-entry-type-page post-entry-31'>
                <div class='entry-content-wrapper clearfix'>
                    <div  class='flex_column av-i3z0f-243165cc077a80e50bbee8f020d21535 av_one_third  avia-builder-el-63  el_before_av_one_third  avia-builder-el-first  first flex_column_div  '     >
                        <div  class='avia-image-container av-lib47uf4-9660e94fab46a96b36ab619c8b679a09 av-styling- avia-align-center  avia-builder-el-64  el_before_av_textblock  avia-builder-el-first  av-group-lightbox'   itemprop="image" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="https://schema.org/ImageObject" >
                            <div class="avia-image-container-inner">
                                <div class="avia-image-overlay-wrap">
                                    <a href="...dentures.jpg" class='avia_image' >
                                        <img decoding="async" class='wp-image-699 avia-img-lazy-loading-not-699 avia_image ' src="...dentures-300x264.jpg" alt='...'  height="264" width="300"  itemprop="thumbnailUrl" srcset="..." sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
                                    </a>
                                </div>
                            </div>
                        </div>...

In other words, each .avia-section (Color Section) has its own class=’post-entry post-entry-type-page post-entry-31′, so the images under that DOM are collected as a separate image set for a lightbox.

So I ended up just bypassing all of it, and replaced the code in avia-snippet-lightbox.js with my own child_avia-snippet-lightbox.js:

return this.each(function()
{
    //Find all linked images
    var myLinks = $(options.autolinkElements, this);
    
    //Note: ".not(options.exclude)" is left out of this "myLinks.not(options.exclude).addClass(..." on purpose to impose the policy: if you want to exclude an image from the all-images set in the lightbox, just don't make it a link. Linked images excluded from the lightbox means if the user clicks on that linked image, it will follow that link, which is to open it's full size image, but without the lightbox's closing mechanism. Then the only way for the user to go back to the page is to click the Back button--which is bad UX.

	myLinks.addClass('lightbox-added').magnificPopup($.avia_utilities.av_popup);
});

And adding this to my child functions.php file:

add_action('wp_enqueue_scripts', 'magnific_script_fix', 100);
function magnific_script_fix()
{
    wp_dequeue_script('avia-lightbox-activation');
    wp_enqueue_script('child_avia-lightbox-activation', get_stylesheet_directory_uri().'/child_avia-snippet-lightbox.js', array('jquery'));
}

Also, as you can see, I’ve left out “.not(options.exclude)” from myLinks.not(options.exclude).addClass(‘lightbox-added’).magnificPopup($.avia_utilities.av_popup) for the following reason: If I put it in, then, yes, the images with those exclusion classes will be excluded from the lightbox. But they are still linked images: so if a user clicks on one of them, it will follow that link, which is to open it’s full size image, but without the lightbox’s closing mechanism. So the only way for the user to go back to the page is to click the Back button–which is bad UX.

FYI: I attempted to figure out a way to add each of those excluded images in its own individual one-image lightbox, but I just couldn’t even figure out how Enfold does the not(options.exclude), as a starting point (going step by step in the debugger to see how it’s doing it was a bewildering experience), so I just gave up. So I just gave myself the policy: if you want to exclude an image from the all-images set in the lightbox, just don’t make it a link. Lol. Yes, I could have left the .not(options.exclude) in there and just not used it per my policy, but I wanted to make sure the UX stays correct by preventing me (or anyone else maintaining the site) from having any effect to forgetting the policy and adding e.g. “noLightbox” to an image’s Custom CSS Class field, expecting it to be excluded from the lightbox, but still keeping the image’s link active. No: if I (or they) go into the code, they’ll see there is no .not(options.exclude) at all, and read the comment in the code, to see why their image is not getting excluded from the lightbox.

So, anyway, that’s my solution to my particular problem. I appreciate your help, Mike. Unless you have some solution code for me to include those excluded images in their own individual one-image lightboxes (which would be helpful to just round up this solution, in case others want to use it), you may close this thread.

Thanks very much,
Gary

• This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by garysch37.

Thank you for replying Ismael. I appreciate you helping me. Unfortunately, “av-group-lightbox” didn’t work for me.

First, I didn’t realize I needed to add a class to every image I want to open up in the lightbox gallery on a particular page. As I mentioned in my original post, point #2, all images on the page in my original test, except the office photo inside its Color Section, opened in the lightbox gallery, WITHOUT MY HAVING TO ADD ANY CLASS TO CONNECT THEM TOGETHER. I just didn’t understand why a Color Section was messing things up. I assumed that to omit an image from the lightbox gallery, you just don’t create a link on it, and if the image is linked, then it’s part of the lightbox gallery.

It’s actually weird that all those images did open in the lightbox gallery connected together without a class, because I have found some people on the Internet talk about how Magnific Popup requires you to add a class to all images on a page that you want to include in the gallery, just like you said.

Or the class is to be added to the links of the images perhaps, like the leadership at https://help.groupthought.com/article/64-pages-how-to-show-an-image-in-a-pop-up-window are telling their people to do:

$(document).ready(function() {
  $('.template-article img').each(function() {
      var currentImage = $(this);
      currentImage.wrap("<a class='image-link' href='" + currentImage.attr("src") + "'</a>");
  });
  $('.image-link').magnificPopup({type:'image'});  
});

But I don’t know how to easily give a class to my image links, so I just went ahead with your suggestion. When I did a hard refresh of my page, I saw that the “av-group-lightbox” class was added to the avia-image-container <div>:

<div class='avia-image-container av-liaq7z66-359c3e896ff6ab62eb93041dca6e9e63 av-styling- avia-align-center avia-builder-el-5 avia-builder-el-no-sibling av-group-lightbox' itemprop="image" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="https://schema.org/ImageObject" >
    <div class="avia-image-container-inner">
        <div class="avia-image-overlay-wrap">
            <a href="...dog_chewing_denture.jpg" class='avia_image' >
                <img decoding="async" class='wp-image-191 avia-img-lazy-loading-not-191 avia_image ' src="...dog_chewing_denture-284x300.jpg" alt='' title='dog_chewing_denture'  height="300" width="284"  itemprop="thumbnailUrl" srcset="..." sizes="(max-width: 284px) 100vw, 284px" />
            </a>
        </div>
    </div>
</div>

Anyway, let me run down my analysis:

******
TEST 1
******

First, this is my home page at the moment (which has developed since I first wrote), where all Image Media Element images have Advanced > Link Settings set to Open in Lightbox, EXCEPT AS INDICATED OTHERWISE:

• Dog (test image) in a 1/1 column layout element
• Office Photo in Color Section
• Color Section with text
• Middle-aged couple (test image) in a 1/1 column layout element
• Empty Color Section
• Woman holding dentures (test image)
• Couple on beach (test image) inside a Textblock in a 1/1 column layout element: this embedded image has Display Settings > Link To = Media File (with URL set to the image’s Media Library original full size URL)
• Couple with pretzel & coffee (test image) inside a Textblock in a 1/1 column layout element
• Color Section containing a heading, “Our Services”, in a 1/1 column layout element.
• Color Section for Our Services with 3 rows 3 columns:

    – A bunch of dentures photo (small thumbnail-like image) inside the first 1/3 column layout element
    – An oral surgery photo (small thumbnail-like image) inside the second 1/3 column layout element (first row)
    – A denture on implants (small thumbnail-like image) inside the third 1/3 column layout element (first row): Advanced > Link Settings set to Set Manually and linked to the original full size image using its Media Library URL
    – …the rest of the images in the grid-like Color Section have their images set to nothing (all 1/3 columns in this “Our Services” Color Section are designed to link to the pages discussing those specific services, except I removed that column link in the first row of images for test purposes)

• The oral surgery test image again (full size this time), inside a 1/1 column layout element (test image)

RESULTS WITHOUT “av-group-lightbox”, with Open in Lightbox (and the one manual setting):

• The following images opened up as singular: Dog, Office, Middle-aged couple
• The following images opened connected together in the lightbox gallery: Woman holding dentures, Beach couple, Pretzel couple
• All 3 images from my grid-like Color Section that I defined to Open in Lightbox did so (they were connected together).

So to me it seems like Color Section breaks up image groupings as follows:

• Since there is a Color Section after the dog, it isolates the dog, making it open singly in the lightbox.
• There is only 1 image, the office, inside the Color section following the dog, so it opens singly in the lightbox.
• Since there is an empty Color Section after the Middle-aged couple, it’s isolated and opens singly in the lightbox.
• The next Color Section, containing the “Our Services” heading, comes after the Pretzel couple, so we have 3 images between two Color Sections, allowing them to be connected together to open as a gallery in lightbox.
• The Color Section after that contains our grid-like images (and their headings & blurbs), making all images inside that Color Section set to Open in Lightbox open together in the lightbox as a gallery.
• And the final image at the bottom, our full size oral surgery, is isolated after the previous Color Section, making it open singly in the lightbox.

******
TEST 2
******

Then I thought, for the heck of it, I’ll replace all “Advanced > Link Settings = Open in Lightbox” with “Advanced > Link Settings = Set Manually” & URL pointing to the original full size image’s URL in the Media Library.

RESULTS WITHOUT “av-group-lightbox” and manual URL instead of Open in Lightbox: No change–I got the same results. It’s as if it’s the anchor link on the image (which I assume Open in Lightbox also sets) that determines what goes together–within the Color Section mess-up criterion I found.

******
TEST 3
******

So I’m left with my problem of being able to open all images on the page I wish to together in a single lightbox gallery, irrespective of what Color Sections may exist on the page–which brings us to your kindly proposed solution.

So, for testing, I added “av-group-lightbox” to the Advanced > Developer Settings > Custom CSS Class field of the following images on my home page as specified below:

• *Dog: av-group-lightbox
• *Office Photo: av-group-lightbox
• Color Section with text
• *Middle-aged couple: av-group-lightbox
• Empty Color Section
• Woman holding dentures
• *Beach couple: av-group-lightbox
• *Pretzel couple: av-group-lightbox
• Color Section with 3 rows 3 columns, with “av-group-lightbox” just in the first 2 images:

    – *A bunch of dentures: av-group-lightbox
    – *Oral surgery: av-group-lightbox
    – Implants denture
    – …the rest of the images in the grid-like Color Section

• *Full size Oral surgery: av-group-lightbox

RESULTS WITH “av-group-lightbox” (with either Open in Lightbox or Set Manually–it didn’t matter): There was no change compared to the WITHOUT case:

• The following images opened up as singular: Dog, Office, Middle-aged couple
• The following images opened connected together in the lightbox gallery: Woman holding dentures, Beach couple, Pretzel couple
• All 3 images from my grid-like Color Section that I defined to Open in Lightbox did so connected together, including the Implant denture that I didn’t have “av-group-lightbox” on.

******
TEST 4
******

I also tested with “avia-image” instead of “av-group-lightbox”, since I read somewhere in Enfold documentation/support that for an image embedded in a text block (like my Beach couple), you set Link CSS Class = “avia-image” (without quotes).

By the way, I searched through all Enfold parent files (using the Double Commander tool on my computer after downloading the entire Enfold folder to my computer on Jul 30, 2022), and found no “av-group-lightbox” string inside any files anywhere. Did things change perhaps since my download date? I also looked through the downloaded HTML (Developer’s Page Source), and there is basically no difference between the DOMs and classes for all images (except for the obvious stuff).

Any ideas?

Thanks,
Gary

• This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by garysch37.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by garysch37.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by garysch37.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by garysch37. Reason: All these edits were to get my reply to render properly (sorry)
• This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by garysch37.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by garysch37.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by garysch37.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by garysch37.

Thank you very much, Mike. That did the trick: I didn’t realize I could access the srcset field in img like that, doh! So now I know how to do that, for the situations I need it.

And the situation came up immediately, as I ended up changing my method of doing this home page banner, to use the second method I mentioned, putting my background graphic into the Color Section, and my happy couple image in an Image media element in that Color Section, and then making it all responsive, including using your querySelector with src & srcset to swap out the happy couple images responsively at certain breakpoints, and using it again with backgroundImage to swap out my background graphic at the same breakpoints. Yes, it may seem weird that I’m swapping images manually instead of using srcset, but it was all necessary at these breakpoints (or I’m just not experienced enough to have figured it out). It all worked out nicely.

I even answered my own question about that blue bar under the banner: I totally forgot that WordPress makes background images default to repeating, so I just had to turn repeat off.

Thanks again for all your help! You can close this thread if you wish. /gary

Here’s the final code in case others are interested:

In child theme’s function.php:

function displayHomeBanner() {
    
   if (window.matchMedia("(min-width: 1px) and (max-width: 579px)").matches) {
        // BG GRAPHIC:
        document.querySelector(".seniorCoupleContainer").style.backgroundImage="none";
        // COUPLES PIC:
        document.querySelector(".seniorCouple img").src="...happy-senior-couple-5-556x313px.png";
        document.querySelector(".seniorCouple img").srcset="...happy-senior-couple-5-556x313px.png";
    }
    
    if (window.matchMedia("(min-width: 580px) and (max-width: 819px)").matches) {
        // BG GRAPHIC:
        document.querySelector(".seniorCoupleContainer").style.backgroundImage="url('...home-page-banner-background-4-1079x300px.png')";
        document.querySelector(".seniorCoupleContainer").style.backgroundSize="1079px 300px";
        document.querySelector(".seniorCoupleContainer").style.backgroundRepeat = "no-repeat";
        // COUPLES PIC:
        document.querySelector(".seniorCouple img").src="...happy-senior-couple-4-510x287px.png";
        document.querySelector(".seniorCouple img").srcset="...happy-senior-couple-4-510x287px.png";
    }
    
    if (window.matchMedia("(min-width: 820px) and (max-width: 989px)").matches) {
        // BG GRAPHIC:
        document.querySelector(".seniorCoupleContainer").style.backgroundImage="url('...home-page-banner-background-3-1439x400px.png')";
        document.querySelector(".seniorCoupleContainer").style.backgroundSize="1439px 400px";
        document.querySelector(".seniorCoupleContainer").style.backgroundRepeat = "no-repeat";
        // COUPLES PIC:
        document.querySelector(".seniorCouple img").src="...happy-senior-couple-3-700x394px.png";
        document.querySelector(".seniorCouple img").srcset="...happy-senior-couple-3-700x394px.png";
    }
    
    if (window.matchMedia("(min-width: 990px) and (max-width: 1199px)").matches) {
        // BG GRAPHIC:
        document.querySelector(".seniorCoupleContainer").style.backgroundImage="url('...home-page-banner-background-2-1778x500px.png')";
        document.querySelector(".seniorCoupleContainer").style.backgroundSize="1778px 500px";
        document.querySelector(".seniorCoupleContainer").style.backgroundRepeat = "no-repeat";
        // COUPLES PIC:
        document.querySelector(".seniorCouple img").src="...happy-senior-couple-2-871x490px.png";
        document.querySelector(".seniorCouple img").srcset="...happy-senior-couple-2-871x490px.png";
    }
    
    if (window.matchMedia("(min-width: 2000px)").matches) {
        // BG GRAPHIC:
        document.querySelector(".seniorCoupleContainer").style.backgroundImage="url('...home-page-banner-background.png')";
        document.querySelector(".seniorCoupleContainer").style.backgroundRepeat = "no-repeat";
        document.querySelector(".seniorCoupleContainer").style.backgroundSize="2881px 601px";
        // COUPLES PIC:
        document.querySelector(".seniorCouple img").src="...happy-senior-couple.png";
        document.querySelector(".seniorCouple img").srcset="...happy-senior-couple.png";
    }
}

In child theme’s style.css:

.seniorCoupleContainer {
    background-image: url(https://www.clearlightcomputing.com/denture6/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/home-page-banner-background.png);
    background-repeat: no-repeat;
    background-size: 2881px 601px;
    max-height: 591px; /* Without this there is an inexplicable bottom padding (zeroing margin and padding does nothing): height of senior pic 576 + reset top 35 = 611, but this still leaves a 20px bottom padding. */
}
.seniorCouple {
    top: -35px;
}

/* Get rid of the bottom padding at all these breakpoints because it accummulates between the breakpoints, so this code sort of does a reset of 0 padding: */
@media only screen and (min-width: 1px) and (max-width: 349px) {
    .seniorCoupleContainer {
        max-height: 171px;
    }
}
@media only screen and (min-width: 350px) and (max-width: 369px) {
    .seniorCoupleContainer {
        max-height: 185px;
    }
}
@media only screen and (min-width: 370px) and (max-width: 389px) {
    .seniorCoupleContainer {
        max-height: 199px;
    }
}
@media only screen and (min-width: 390px) and (max-width: 409px) {
    .seniorCoupleContainer {
        max-height: 213px;
    }
}
@media only screen and (min-width: 410px) and (max-width: 429px) {
    .seniorCoupleContainer {
        max-height: 227px;
    }
}
@media only screen and (min-width: 430px) and (max-width: 449px) {
    .seniorCoupleContainer {
        max-height: 241px;
    }
}
@media only screen and (min-width: 450px) and (max-width: 469px) {
    .seniorCoupleContainer {
        max-height: 255px;
    }
}
@media only screen and (min-width: 470px) and (max-width: 489px) {
    .seniorCoupleContainer {
        max-height: 267px;
    }
}
@media only screen and (min-width: 490px) and (max-width: 519px) {
    .seniorCoupleContainer {
        max-height: 284px;
    }
}
@media only screen and (min-width: 520px) and (max-width: 549px) {
    .seniorCoupleContainer {
        max-height: 299px;
    }
}
@media only screen and (min-width: 550px) and (max-width: 579px) {
    .seniorCoupleContainer {
        max-height: 313px;
    }
}

@media only screen and (min-width: 1px) and (max-width: 579px) {
    .seniorCouple {
        top: -50px;
        width: 564px; /* without this it's smaller for some reason */
    }
}
@media only screen and (min-width: 580px) and (max-width: 819px) {
    .seniorCoupleContainer {
        max-height: 302px; /* Get rid of bottom padding. */
    }
    .seniorCouple {
        width: 510px; /* without this it's smaller for some reason */
    }
}
@media only screen and (min-width: 820px) and (max-width: 989px) {
    .seniorCoupleContainer {
        max-height: 409px; /* Get rid of bottom padding. */
    }
    .seniorCouple {
        width: 700px; /* without this it's smaller for some reason */
    }
}
@media only screen and (min-width: 990px) and (max-width: 1199px) {
    .seniorCoupleContainer {
        max-height: 505px; /* Get rid of bottom padding. */
    }
    .seniorCouple {
        width: 871px; /* without this it's smaller for some reason */
    }
}
@media only screen and (min-width:2000px) {
    .seniorCoupleContainer {
        width: 100% !important;
        height: 591px;
        max-height: 591px; /* Get rid of bottom padding. */
    }
    .seniorCouple {
        width: 1024px;
    }
}

• This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by garysch37.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by garysch37.

Hi Mike!

That is so bizarre, because here’s the HTML in Chrome’s inspector for the image’s element (which is also seen in your screen shot in my private area):

<img decoding="async" class="wp-image-412 avia-img-lazy-loading-not-412 avia_image " src="...banner2.jpg" alt="..." title="..." height="831" width="1830" itemprop="thumbnailUrl" srcset="...banner1.jpg 1830w, ...banner1-300x136.jpg 300w, ...banner1-1030x468.jpg 1030w, ...banner1-768x349.jpg 768w, ...banner1-1536x697.jpg 1536w, ...banner1-1500x681.jpg 1500w, ...banner1-705x320.jpg 705w" sizes="(max-width: 1830px) 100vw, 1830px">

As you can see, the src has banner2, but the srcset contains nothing but banner1, and it’s banner1 that is displayed, because banner2 contains just the part of the image with the senior couple, not the graphics background. On smaller screens I want to maximize displaying the couple alone, without have to shrink them to include the background.

Do you know how to get banner2’s srcset in there so it renders properly?

Now, I have been experimenting with doing this, arguably, the correct way: setting the Color Section (class seniorCoupleContainer) to the background graphic image itself using CSS (which works better anyway because I want it to span the entire browser’s width), and inserting an Image media element (class seniorCouple) into the Color Section containing just the happy couple–instead of using a graphics program to combine them as a single image for bigger screens, and swapping the image of the couple with background with just the image of the couple alone on smaller screens.

.seniorCoupleContainer {
    background-image: url(...home-page-banner-background.png);
    background-size: 2881px 601px;
}
.seniorCouple {
    top: -35px;
}

You can see this in a second Color Section I created on the home page below the original banner at the top. With and without the background image, it all works well responsively too:

@media only screen and (max-width:964px) {
    .seniorCoupleContainer {
        background-image: none;
    }
}

However, because there may be other situations I need to use Javascript to swap images, can you please help me solve my original probem?

Thanks,
Gary

• This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by garysch37.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by garysch37.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by garysch37.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by garysch37.

I’m not sure what’s happened, whether one of you kind folks did something to fix my problem of clicking my Contact menu item on my iPhone not working, or something else magically happened (I did nothing to affect this fix as far as I know), but it’s now working.

So I can accept using Enfold/Avia’s method doing the burger menu, which now at least is functional on my iPhone (and I assume on Android phones) in portrait orientation. So unless anyone can help me make my method of doing the burger overlay, moving the top of it to under the burger icon (and my Search icon)–which if possible would be ideal and much appreciated–you can close this thread.

Thanks,
Gary

Sorry, Mike, that I didn’t send a thanks to you. Thanks for replying. Someone can now close this thread. All the best, Gary

Thanks, Ismael & Guenni007. Actually, Guenni007, that’s not quite what I mean. Here’s an image showing what I mean by text wrapping around an image, both in the main body of a page and in a column of the footer. It’s a very common thing on websites, with the image usually either left or right and text going along the side and underneath (this is a permanent link that I’ll never delete): https://www.dropbox.com/s/89yr2yo3k6nm59h/text%20wrapping.jpg?dl=0

Thanks,
Gary

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by garysch37.

That’s too bad. Oh well. Thanks, Ismael.

All the best,
Gary

Hi Mike!

Thank you for helping me. I should have checked my own Console to see this error! Your answer got me on the right direction. FYI: No, my root site is not an Enfold theme (only my denture6 directory is), but that’s not the issue.

It turns out that this only happens for me in Firefox (I’m using version 105.01.1 (64-bit) on Windows 7) (I don’t know if that’s the browser you were using?): e.g. Chrome (105.0.5195.127) and Internet Explorer (11.0.9600.19596) were fine. I tracked down the solution: I have to add the following to the .htaccess file in my denture6 directory:

# Fix Search Button Icon Problem:
# In Firefox, when user searches for something from the body of the 404 page, the
# Search button icon displays as a little box with "EB03" in it instead of the
# magnifying glass (in both the header and the body Search forms). It doesn't
# happen in Chrome or IE. Based on the Console errors it gives, it's because
# it's not loading the "entypo-fontello" font from the Enfold parent theme (in 
# which "EB03" is a magnifying glass) because the CORS header 
# 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' is missing.
#
# Note that the website address here needs to match the website address in
# WordPress > Settings > General > WordPress Address (URL) & Site Address (URL)
# (including any "www." (or lack thereof), but the "https" isn't needed here).
# The "always" in "always set" is needed.

<FilesMatch ".(eot|otf|ttf|woff|woff2)">
Header always set Access-Control-Allow-Origin "www.mySite.com"
</FilesMatch>

Thanks again,
Gary

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by garysch37.

Thanks, Ismael.

But that doesn’t solve the problem of “About” not being in the breadcrumbs. In fact, I already change the color of the About parent menu item when any of it’s children are active.

What we’re really looking for is overriding some PHP or even JavaScript functions in some fancy way to insert the parent menu items that are custom links instead of pages into the breadcrumbs. I’m a computer programmer/analyst myself and could in theory do it. But frankly it would just be too much work for me to figure it all out. I was just hoping you guys have already run across this issue and have a solution in your pocket.

If none of you do, it might just be best for me to just hard-code the breadcrumbs in HTML on each page.

Thanks,
Gary

Hi Mike! Yes, you can close this issue. I learned a lot in trying to solve this problem. Thanks again for your help. All the best, Gary

Thanks, Mike. That’s funny: that’s the exact solution I tried and mentioned above (the “FOUC approach”)–well, Stefan’s solution, not Adam’s (because I don’t know how to do Adam’s inside WordPress), as you can see in my commented out part in functions.php. The investigation continues.