LaVOZs

The World’s Largest Online Community for Developers

'; html - How can I get the image to expand to fit the text? Or, to allow scrolling on the page so that the user can always see the text? - LavOzs.Com

I am trying to create a simple landing page with a background image and a lot of text on it. The problem I have is that the text overflows the image and you can't see all the text. How do I make it so the text fits and is readable to the user?

    <div class="bgimg">
  <div class="topleft">
    <p>Logo</p>
  </div>
  <div class="middle">
    <h1>COMING SOON</h1>
    <hr>
    <p>A week ago a friend invited a couple of other couples over for dinner. Eventually, the food (but not the wine) was cleared off the table for what turned out to be some fierce Scrabbling. Heeding the strategy of going for the shorter, more valuable word over the longer cheaper word, our final play was “Bon,” which–as luck would have it!–happens to be a Japanese Buddhist festival, and not, as I had originally asserted while laying the tiles on the board, one half of a chocolate-covered cherry treat. Anyway, the strategy worked. My team only lost by 53 points instead of 58.

Just the day before, our host had written of the challenges of writing short. In journalism–my friend’s chosen trade, and mostly my own, too–Mark Twain’s observation undoubtedly applies: “I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.” The principle holds across genres, in letters, reporting, and other writing. It’s harder to be concise than to blather. (Full disclosure, this blog post will clock in at a blather-esque 803 words.) Good writing is boiled down, not baked full of air like a souffl??. No matter how yummy souffl??s may be. Which they are. Yummy like a Grisham novel.

Lately, I’ve been noticing how my sentences have a tendency to keep going when I write them onscreen. This goes for concentrated writing as well as correspondence. (Twain probably believed that correspondence, in an ideal world, also demands concentration. But he never used email.) Last week I caught myself packing four conjunctions into a three-line sentence in an email. That’s inexcusable. Since then, I have tried to eschew conjunctions whenever possible. Gone are the commas, the and’s, but’s, and so’s; in are staccato declaratives. Better to read like bad Hemingway than bad Faulkner.

Length–as we all know, and for lack of a more original or effective way of saying it–matters. But (ahem), it’s also a matter of how you use it. Style and length are technically two different things.

Try putting some prose onscreen, though, and they mix themselves up pretty quickly. This has much to do with the time constraints we claim to feel in the digital age. We don’t have time to compose letters and post them anymore–much less pay postage, what with all the banks kinda-sorta losing our money these days–so we blast a few emails. We don’t have time to talk, so we text. We don’t have time to text to specific people, so we update our Facebook status. We don’t have time to write essays, so we blog.

I’m less interested by the superficial reduction of words–i.e. the always charming imho or c u l8r–than the genres in which those communications occur: blogs, texts, tweets, emails. All these interstitial communiques, do they really reflect super brevity that would make Twain proud? Or do they just reflect poorly stylized writing that desperately seeks a clearer form?

I rather think the latter. Clive Thompson wrote last month in the NYT Magazine that constant digital updates, after a day, can begin “to feel like a short story; follow it for a month, and it’s a novel.” He was right to see the bits as part of a larger whole. The words now flying through our digital pipes & ether more or less tend to resemble parts of bigger units, perhaps even familiar genres. But stories and novels have definite conclusions; they also have conventional lengths. Quick, how long is the conventional blog, when you add up all of its posts and comments? How long is the longest email thread you send back and forth on a single topic?

Most important: What exactly are we writing when we’re doing all of this writing? I won’t pretend to coin a whole new term here; I still think the best we can muster is a more fitting analogue. And if we must find an analogue in an existing literary unit, I propose the paragraph. Our constant writing has begun to feel like a neverending digital paragraph. Not a tight, stabbing paragraph from The Sun Also Rises or even a graceful, sometimes-slinking, sometimes-soaring paragraph from Absalom! Absalom!, I mean a convoluted, haphazard, meandering paragraph, something like Kerouac’s original draft of On the Road–only taped together by bytes. And 1 percent as interesting.

Paragraphs, particularly those that wrap from one page to the next, inherently possess a necessary suspension that tightens the reader’s focus yet breaks down the narrative into digestable sections. Just like emails or blogs or texts. The mental questions while reading all of these feel the same:

“Is this the last line or is there more?”

“Is the writer really trying to say something here, or just setting up a larger point?”

“Does this part have the information I’m looking for?”</p>
  </div>
  <div class="bottomleft">
    <p>Some text</p>
  </div>
</div>

I know it is a lot of text but that isn't the important part. The important part is to make it so the user can see it all.

My css:

body, html {
  height: 100%
}

.bgimg {
  /* Background image */
  background-image: url('https://www.w3schools.com/w3images/forestbridge.jpg');
  /* Full-screen */
  height: 100%;
  /* Center the background image */
  background-position: center;
  /* Scale and zoom in the image */
  background-size: cover;
  /* Add position: relative to enable absolutely positioned elements inside the image (place text) */
  position: relative;
  /* Add a white text color to all elements inside the .bgimg container */
  color: white;
  /* Add a font */
  font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace;
  /* Set the font-size to 25 pixels */
  font-size: 25px;
}

/* Position text in the top-left corner */
.topleft {
  position: absolute;
  top: 0;
  left: 16px;
}

/* Position text in the bottom-left corner */
.bottomleft {
  position: absolute;
  bottom: 0;
  left: 16px;
}

/* Position text in the middle */
.middle {
  position: absolute;
  top: 50%;
  left: 50%;
  transform: translate(-50%, -50%);
  text-align: center;
}

/* Style the <hr> element */
hr {
  margin: auto;
  width: 40%;
}```






https://jsfiddle.net/9136cgvo/

You need to play with the overflow of your parent div. Here is the jsfiddle for it, I also changed your position: absolute to fixed so that they stay at the same place even if you scroll.

html, body {
  height: 100%;
  margin: 0;
  padding: 0;
}

.bgimg {
  background-image: url('https://www.w3schools.com/w3images/forestbridge.jpg');
  height: 100%;
  background-position: center;
  background-size: cover;
  position: relative;
  color: white;
  font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace;
  font-size: 20px;
  overflow-x: scroll;
}

.topleft {
  position: fixed;
  top: 0;
  left: 16px;
}

.bottomleft {
  position: fixed;
  bottom: 0;
  left: 16px;
}

.middle {
  position: absolute;
  top: 4em;
  left: 50%;
  transform: translateX(-50%);
  text-align: center;
}

hr {
  margin: auto;
  width: 40%;
}
<div class="bgimg">
  <div class="topleft">
    <p>Logo</p>
  </div>
  <div class="middle">
    <h1>COMING SOON</h1>
    <hr>
    <p>A week ago a friend invited a couple of other couples over for dinner. Eventually, the food (but not the wine) was cleared off the table for what turned out to be some fierce Scrabbling. Heeding the strategy of going for the shorter, more valuable word over the longer cheaper word, our final play was “Bon,” which–as luck would have it!–happens to be a Japanese Buddhist festival, and not, as I had originally asserted while laying the tiles on the board, one half of a chocolate-covered cherry treat. Anyway, the strategy worked. My team only lost by 53 points instead of 58.

Just the day before, our host had written of the challenges of writing short. In journalism–my friend’s chosen trade, and mostly my own, too–Mark Twain’s observation undoubtedly applies: “I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.” The principle holds across genres, in letters, reporting, and other writing. It’s harder to be concise than to blather. (Full disclosure, this blog post will clock in at a blather-esque 803 words.) Good writing is boiled down, not baked full of air like a souffl??. No matter how yummy souffl??s may be. Which they are. Yummy like a Grisham novel.

Lately, I’ve been noticing how my sentences have a tendency to keep going when I write them onscreen. This goes for concentrated writing as well as correspondence. (Twain probably believed that correspondence, in an ideal world, also demands concentration. But he never used email.) Last week I caught myself packing four conjunctions into a three-line sentence in an email. That’s inexcusable. Since then, I have tried to eschew conjunctions whenever possible. Gone are the commas, the and’s, but’s, and so’s; in are staccato declaratives. Better to read like bad Hemingway than bad Faulkner.

Length–as we all know, and for lack of a more original or effective way of saying it–matters. But (ahem), it’s also a matter of how you use it. Style and length are technically two different things.

Try putting some prose onscreen, though, and they mix themselves up pretty quickly. This has much to do with the time constraints we claim to feel in the digital age. We don’t have time to compose letters and post them anymore–much less pay postage, what with all the banks kinda-sorta losing our money these days–so we blast a few emails. We don’t have time to talk, so we text. We don’t have time to text to specific people, so we update our Facebook status. We don’t have time to write essays, so we blog.

I’m less interested by the superficial reduction of words–i.e. the always charming imho or c u l8r–than the genres in which those communications occur: blogs, texts, tweets, emails. All these interstitial communiques, do they really reflect super brevity that would make Twain proud? Or do they just reflect poorly stylized writing that desperately seeks a clearer form?

I rather think the latter. Clive Thompson wrote last month in the NYT Magazine that constant digital updates, after a day, can begin “to feel like a short story; follow it for a month, and it’s a novel.” He was right to see the bits as part of a larger whole. The words now flying through our digital pipes & ether more or less tend to resemble parts of bigger units, perhaps even familiar genres. But stories and novels have definite conclusions; they also have conventional lengths. Quick, how long is the conventional blog, when you add up all of its posts and comments? How long is the longest email thread you send back and forth on a single topic?

Most important: What exactly are we writing when we’re doing all of this writing? I won’t pretend to coin a whole new term here; I still think the best we can muster is a more fitting analogue. And if we must find an analogue in an existing literary unit, I propose the paragraph. Our constant writing has begun to feel like a neverending digital paragraph. Not a tight, stabbing paragraph from The Sun Also Rises or even a graceful, sometimes-slinking, sometimes-soaring paragraph from Absalom! Absalom!, I mean a convoluted, haphazard, meandering paragraph, something like Kerouac’s original draft of On the Road–only taped together by bytes. And 1 percent as interesting.

Paragraphs, particularly those that wrap from one page to the next, inherently possess a necessary suspension that tightens the reader’s focus yet breaks down the narrative into digestable sections. Just like emails or blogs or texts. The mental questions while reading all of these feel the same:

“Is this the last line or is there more?”

“Is the writer really trying to say something here, or just setting up a larger point?”

“Does this part have the information I’m looking for?”</p>
  </div>
  <div class="bottomleft">
    <p>Some text</p>
  </div>
</div>