-
Posts
-
Hi bluecafe,
Could you post a link to the site in question so that we can take a closer look please?
Regards,
RikardHi Rikard, thanks for your reply. I have made a demo page showing that the setting “automatic based on screen width” on a page inside the layout element 1/1 (or color section) without any sidebars results in two columns only.
I would expect four or at least three columns for an automatic column number for a masonry in a 1/1 layout element on a page with no sidebar.
The masonry width is correct if I don’t place the masonry element inside a layout element.
Here the width is adjusting to show more than two columns.Hi,
Please post us your login credentials (in the “private data” field), so we can take a look at your backend.
Login credentials include:
- The URL to the login screen.
- A valid username (with full administration capabilities).
- As well as a password for that username.
- permission to deactivate plugins if necessary.
Make sure to use Enfold v3.8.
Best regards,
AndyI’ve noticed the same bug, so I’m always setting the number of columns manually… would be good if this gets fixed in the theme.
Hey!
Thanks a lot for letting us know, we do aprpeciate it a lot.
We have reported the issue to Kriesi and he will do fix it, as soon as possible.Thanks a lot for your patience and understanding
Regards,
BasilisGuys – came across this troubleshooting and bug still seems to be present.
A masonry element inside a color section will only display 2 columns when set to automatic columns which is a pain.
Is there a fix for this yet?
Thanks.Hi,
This is possible but you have to remove the following css code in the css > shortcodes.css file.
#top .container .av-masonry-col-flexible .av-masonry-entry{ width: 49.80%; }The width inside a column layout or a color section is limited so the masonry element are force to only have two columns.
Best regards,
IsmaelWill this be fixed in a future version? Especially with screens having more and more pixels width this is becoming an issue more and more.
Thanks for the explanation Ismael. I think this should be deleted in the theme files because a fix width and ‘flexible’ is a contradiction, isn’t it?
I couldn’t find a way to delete the line in a child theme so I deleted it in the parent theme. Now I got 6 grid items in a row which made the grid items too small. I fixed it by adding a min-width to the child theme
#top .container .av-masonry-col-flexible .av-masonry-entry{
min-width: 300px;
}Could this be an option? Deleting the line in enfold and adding a min-width instead?
Hi,
Will this be fixed in a future version? Especially with screens having more and more pixels width this is becoming an issue more and more.
This is the intended behaviour of the masonry element when contained.
Could this be an option? Deleting the line in enfold and adding a min-width instead?
How many columns are you expecting? Yes, that is one of the solution but I think it’s better if you control the max width property of the items on desktop view. Revert the shortcodes.css file to default, remove the css modification then use this one.
@media only screen and (min-width: 989px) { #top .container .av-masonry-col-flexible .av-masonry-entry{ max-width: 33.33% !important; } }This will force the element to display 3 columns, lower width value equals more columns.
Best regards,
IsmaelHow many columns are you expecting?
Not two for a color section as it is the present state ;)
if I choose “automatic based on screen width” I expect the script to detect the appropriate column number. It shouldn’t be too small and it shouldn’t be too big. This is why I think min-width 300px is the best solution. Then the script would automatically find the right column number. If I force a max-width of 33.33% I can choose three columns as well. This has nothing to do with “automatic based on screen width”. Just my 2cents ..
I agree. I fully consider this a bug.
> This is the intended behaviour of the masonry element when contained.
Bizarre reasoning. If I wanted it fixed at two columns I would set it fixed at two columns. If I choose flexible it should be flexible.
Hi,
Bizarre reasoning. If I wanted it fixed at two columns I would set it fixed at two columns. If I choose flexible it should be flexible.
I’m not sure what’s so bizarre about limiting the items to two when the container is a bit smaller compare to full width.
Best regards,
IsmaelI’m not sure what’s so bizarre about limiting the items to two when the container is a bit smaller compare to full width.
A fix number of two is not flexible. Compared to the size of a masonry item on a full width screen the size of the two items within the container is in no relation. If a fixed number is set the number four would be far more appropriate. But then again … a fix number of four isn’t flexible.
Removing the forced width and replacing it with a min-width of a masonry item could solve the problem and flexible would be really flexible.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.