Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 5, 2024. It is now read-only.

Why does md-sidenav use display:block instead of display:flex #734

Closed
epelc opened this issue Nov 22, 2014 · 5 comments
Closed

Why does md-sidenav use display:block instead of display:flex #734

epelc opened this issue Nov 22, 2014 · 5 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@epelc
Copy link
Contributor

epelc commented Nov 22, 2014

Hello, I was trying to make a sidenav with an item stuck to the bottom of it using flex/layout. But it wasn't working until I switched the display:block to display:flex and added layout="column" to the md-sidenav. Is there any reason why block is the default? I also found it was the default on md-content which also caused problems with using flex. Let me know if you need a better example.

@epelc epelc changed the title Why does md-sidenav have display:block Why does md-sidenav use display:block instead of display:flex Nov 22, 2014
@marcysutton
Copy link
Contributor

It may be a bug with an accessibility feature of the sidenav--at some point they were changed to really hide when they aren't visible by using display: none and display: block. display: flex probably should have been used for the open state instead. cc @ajoslin

@epelc
Copy link
Contributor Author

epelc commented Nov 22, 2014

@marcysutton Thanks for the info. I want to experiment more with it because iirc md-content also needed display:flex to expand correctly in the sidenav. Maybe this effects more elements I dont know yet though.

@marcysutton
Copy link
Contributor

@epelc it was a feature specific to md-sidenav, so I doubt it.

@epelc
Copy link
Contributor Author

epelc commented Nov 22, 2014

@marcysutton thanks I guess we'll have to see what others think before this is changed.

@ThomasBurleson
Copy link
Contributor

@marcysutton - Please reopen if this has not been resolved with 0.6.0.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants