Animated Background Stripes That Transition on Hover

How often to do you reach for the CSS background-size property? If you’re like me — and probably lots of other front-end folks — then it’s usually when you background-size: cover an image to fill the space of an entire element.

Well, I was presented with an interesting challenge that required more advanced background sizing: background stripes that transition on hover. Check this out and hover it with your cursor:

There’s a lot more going on there than the size of the background, but that was the trick I needed to get the stripes to transition. I thought I’d show you how I arrived there, not only because I think it’s a really nice visual effect, but because it required me to get creative with gradients and blend modes that I think you might enjoy.

Let’s start with a very basic setup to keep things simple. I’m talking about a single <div> in the HTML that’s styled as a green square:

<div></div>
div {
  width: 500px;
  height: 500px;
  background: palegreen;
}
Perfect square with a pale green background color.

Setting up the background stripes

If your mind went straight to a CSS linear gradient when you saw those stripes, then we’re already on the same page. We can’t exactly do a repeating gradient in this case since we want the stripes to occupy uneven amounts of space and transition them, but we can create five stripes by chaining five backgrounds on top of our existing background color and placing them to the top-right of the container:

div {
  width: 500px;
  height: 500px;
  background: 
    linear-gradient(black, black) top right,
    linear-gradient(black, black) top 100px right,
    linear-gradient(black, black) top 200px right,
    linear-gradient(black, black) top 300px right,
    linear-gradient(black, black) top 400px right, 
    palegreen;
}

I made horizontal stripes, but we could also go vertical with the approach we’re covering here. And we can simplify this quite a bit with custom properties:

div {
  --gt: linear-gradient(black, black);
  --n: 100px;

  width: 500px;
  height: 500px;
  background: 
    var(--gt) top right,
    var(--gt) top var(--n) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 2) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 3) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 4) right, 
    palegreen;
}

So, the --gt value is the gradient and --n is a constant we’re using to nudge the stripes downward so they are offset vertically. And you may have noticed that I haven’t set a true gradient, but rather solid black stripes in the linear-gradient() function — that’s intentional and we’ll get to why I did that in a bit.

One more thing we ought to do before moving on is prevent our backgrounds from repeating; otherwise, they’ll tile and fill the entire space:

div {
  --gt: linear-gradient(black, black);
  --n: 100px;

  width: 500px;
  height: 500px;
  background: 
    var(--gt) top right,
    var(--gt) top var(--n) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 2) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 3) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 4) right, 
    palegreen;
  background-repeat: no-repeat;
}

We could have set background-repeat in the background shorthand, but I decided to break it out here to keep things easy to read.

Offsetting the stripes

We technically have stripes, but it’s pretty tough to tell because there’s no spacing between them and they cover the entire container. It’s more like we have a solid black square.

This is where we get to use the background-size property. We want to set both the height and the width of the stripes and the property supports a two-value syntax that allows us to do exactly that. And, we can chain those sizes by comma separating them the same way we did on background.

Let’s start simple by setting the widths first. Using the single-value syntax for background-size sets the width and defaults the height to auto. I’m using totally arbitrary values here, so set the values to what works best for your design:

div {
  --gt: linear-gradient(black, black);
  --n: 100px;

  width: 500px;
  height: 500px;
  background: 
    var(--gt) top right,
    var(--gt) top var(--n) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 2) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 3) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 4) right, 
    palegreen;
  background-repeat: no-repeat;
  background-size: 60%, 90%, 70%, 40%, 10%;
}

If you’re using the same values that I am, you’ll get this:

Doesn’t exactly look like we set the width for all the stripes, does it? That’s because of the auto height behavior of the single-value syntax. The second stripe is wider than the others below it, and it is covering them. We ought to set the heights so we can see our work. They should all be the same height and we can actually re-use our --n variable, again, to keep things simple:

div {
  --gt: linear-gradient(black, black);
  --n: 100px;

  width: 500px;
  height: 500px;
  background: 
    var(--gt) top right,
    var(--gt) top var(--n) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 2) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 3) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 4) right, 
    palegreen;
    background-repeat: no-repeat;
    background-size: 60% var(--n), 90% var(--n), 70% var(--n), 40% var(--n), 10% var(--n); // HIGHLIGHT 15
}

Ah, much better!

Adding gaps between the stripes

This is a totally optional step if your design doesn’t require gaps between the stripes, but mine did and it’s not overly complicated. We change the height of each stripe’s background-size a smidge, decreasing the value so they fall short of filling the full vertical space.

We can continue to use our --n variable, but subtract a small amount, say 5px, using calc() to get what we want.

background-size: 60% calc(var(--n) - 5px), 90% calc(var(--n) - 5px), 70% calc(var(--n) - 5px), 40% calc(var(--n) - 5px), 10% calc(var(--n) - 5px);

That’s a lot of repetition we can eliminate with another variable:

div {
  --h: calc(var(--n) - 5px);
  /* etc. */
  background-size: 60% var(--h), 90% var(--h), 70% var(--h), 40% var(--h), 10% var(--h);
}

Masking and blending

Now let’s swap the palegreen background color we’ve been using for visual purposes up to this point for white.

div {
  /* etc. */
  background: 
    var(--gt) top right,
    var(--gt) top var(--n) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 2) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 3) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 4) right, 
    #fff;
  /* etc. */
}

A black and white pattern like this is perfect for masking and blending. To do that, we’re first going to wrap our <div> in a new parent container and introduce a second <div> under it:

<section>
  <div></div>
  <div></div>
</section>

We’re going to do a little CSS re-factoring here. Now that we have a new parent container, we can pass the fixed width and height properties we were using on our <div> over there:

section {
  width: 500px;
  height: 500px;
} 

I’m also going to use CSS Grid to position the two <div> elements on top of one another. This is the same trick Temani Afif uses to create his super cool image galleries. The idea is that we place both divs over the full container using the grid-area property and align everything toward the center:

section {
  display: grid;
  align-items: center;
  justify-items: center;
  width: 500px;
  height: 500px;
} 

section > div {
  width: inherit;
  height: inherit;
  grid-area: 1 / 1;
}

Now, check this out. The reason I used a solid gradient that goes from black to black earlier is to set us up for masking and blending the two <div> layers. This isn’t true masking in the sense that we’re calling the mask property, but the contrast between the layers controls what colors are visible. The area covered by white will remain white, and the area covered by black leaks through. MDN’s documentation on blend modes has a nice explanation of how this works.

To get that working, I’ll apply the real gradient we want to see on the first <div> while applying the style rules from our initial <div> on the new one, using the :nth-child() pseudo-selector:

div:nth-child(1) { 
  background: linear-gradient(to right, red, orange); 
}

div:nth-child(2)  {
  --gt: linear-gradient(black, black);
  --n: 100px;
  --h: calc(var(--n) - 5px);
  background: 
    var(--gt) top right,
    var(--gt) top var(--n) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 2) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 3) right,
    var(--gt) top calc(var(--n) * 4) right, 
    white;
  background-repeat: no-repeat;
  background-size: 60% var(--h), 90% var(--h), 70% var(--h), 40% var(--h), 10% var(--h);
}

If we stop here, we actually won’t see any visual difference from what we had before. That’s because we haven’t done the actual blending yet. So, let’s do that now using the screen blend mode:

div:nth-child(2)  {
  /* etc. */
  mix-blend-mode: screen;
}

I used a beige background color in the demo I showed at the beginning of this article. That slightly darker sort of off-white coloring allows a little color to bleed through the rest of the background:

The hover effect

The last piece of this puzzle is the hover effect that widens the stripes to full width. First, let’s write out our selector for it. We want this to happen when the parent container (<section> in our case) is hovered. When it’s hovered, we’ll change the background size of the stripes contained in the second <div>:

/* When <section> is hovered, change the second div's styles */
section:hover > div:nth-child(2){
  /* styles go here */
}

We’ll want to change the background-size of the stripes to the full width of the container while maintaining the same height:

section:hover > div:nth-child(2){
  background-size: 100% var(--h);
}

That “snaps” the background to full-width. If we add a little transition to this, then we see the stripes expand on hover:

section:hover > div:nth-child(2){
  background-size: 100% var(--h);
  transition: background-size 1s;
}

Here’s that final demo once again:

I only added text in there to show what it might look like to use this in a different context. If you do the same, then it’s worth making sure there’s enough contrast between the text color and the colors used in the gradient to comply with WCAG guidelines. And while we’re touching briefly on accessibility, it’s worth considering user preferences for reduced motion when it comes to the hover effect.

That’s a wrap!

Pretty neat, right? I certainly think so. What I like about this, too, is that it’s pretty maintainable and customizable. For example, we can alter the height, colors, and direction of the stripes by changing a few values. You might even variablize a few more things in there — like the colors and widths — to make it even more configurable.

I’m really interested if you would have approached this a different way. If so, please share in the comments! It’d be neat to see how many variations we can collect.


Animated Background Stripes That Transition on Hover originally published on CSS-Tricks, which is part of the DigitalOcean family. You should get the newsletter.

Fancy Image Decorations: Single Element Magic

As the title says, we are going to decorate images! There’s a bunch of other articles out there that talk about this, but what we’re covering here is quite a bit different because it’s more of a challenge. The challenge? Decorate an image using only the <img> tag and nothing more.

That right, no extra markup, no divs, and no pseudo-elements. Just the one tag.

Sounds difficult, right? But by the end of this article — and the others that make up this little series — I’ll prove that CSS is powerful enough to give us great and stunning results despite the limitation of working with a single element.

Fancy Image Decorations series

  • Single Element Magic — you are here
  • Masks and Advanced Hover Effects (coming October 21 )
  • Outlines and Complex Animations (coming October 28 )

Let’s start with our first example

Before digging into the code let’s enumerate the possibilities for styling an <img> without any extra elements or pseudo-elements. We can use border, box-shadow, outline, and, of course, background. It may look strange to add a background to an image because we cannot see it as it will be behind the image — but the trick is to create space around the image using padding and/or border and then draw our background inside that space.

I think you know what comes next since I talked about background, right? Yes, gradients! All the decorations we are going to make rely on a lot of gradients. If you’ve followed me for a while, I think this probably comes as no surprise to you at all. 😁

Let’s get back to our first example:

img {
  --s: 10px; /* control the size */
  padding: var(--s);
  border: calc(2 * var(--s)) solid #0000;
  outline: 1px solid #000;
  outline-offset: calc(-1 * var(--s));
  background: conic-gradient(from 90deg at 1px 1px, #0000 25%, #000 0);
}

We are defining padding and a transparent border using the variable --s to create a space around our image equal to three times that variable.

Why are we using both padding and border instead of one or the other? We can get by using only one of them but I need this combination for my gradient because, by default, the initial value of background-clip is border-box and background-origin is equal to padding-box.

Here is a step-by-step illustration to understand the logic:

Initially, we don’t have any borders on the image, so our gradient will create two segments with 1px of thickness. (I am using 3px in this specific demo so it’s easier to see.) We add a colored border and the gradient still gives us the same result inside the padding area (due to background-origin) but it repeats behind the border. If we make the color of the border transparent, we can use the repetition and we get the frame we want.

The outline in the demo has a negative offset. That creates a square shape at the top of the gradient. That’s it! We added a nice decoration to our image using one gradient and an outline. We could have used more gradients! But I always try to keep my code as simple as possible and I found that adding an outline is better that way.

Here is a gradient-only solution where I am using only padding to define the space. Still the same result but with a more complex syntax.

Let’s try another idea:

For this one, I took the previous example removed the outline, and applied a clip-path to cut the gradient on each side. The clip-path value is a bit verbose and confusing but here is an illustration to better see its points:

Side-by-side comparison of the image with and without using clip-path.

I think you get the main idea. We are going to combine backgrounds, outlines, clipping, and some masking to achieve different kinds of decorations. We are also going to consider some cool hover animations as an added bonus! What we’ve looked at so far is merely a small overview of what’s coming!

The Corner-Only Frame

This one takes four gradients. Each gradient covers one corner and, on hover, we expand them to create a full frame around the image. Let’s dissect the code for one of the gradients:

--b: 5px; /* border thickness */
background: conic-gradient(from 90deg at top var(--b) left var(--b), #0000 90deg, darkblue 0) 0 0;
background-size: 50px 50px; 
background-repeat: no-repeat;

We are going to draw a gradient with a size equal to 50px 50px and place it at the top-left corner (0 0). For the gradient’s configuration, here’s a step-by-step illustration showing how I reached that result.

We tend to think that gradients are only good for transitioning between two colors. But in reality, we can do so much more with them! They are especially useful when it comes to creating different shapes. The trick is to make sure we have hard stops between colors — like in the example above — rather than smooth transitions:

#0000 25%, darkblue 0

This is basically saying: “fill the gradient with a transparent color until 25% of the area, then fill the remaining area with darkblue.

You might be scratching your head over the 0 value. It’s a little hack to simplify the syntax. In reality, we should use this to make a hard stop between colors:

#0000 25%, darkblue 25%

That is more logical! The transparent color ends at 25% and darkblue starts exactly where the transparency ends, making a hard stop. If we replace the second one with 0, the browser will do the job for us, so it is a slightly more efficient way to go about it.

Somewhere in the specification, it says:

if a color stop or transition hint has a position that is less than the specified position of any color stop or transition hint before it in the list, set its position to be equal to the largest specified position of any color stop or transition hint before it.

0 is always smaller than any other value, so the browser will always convert it to the largest value that comes before it in the declaration. In our case, that number is 25%.

Now, we apply the same logic to all the corners and we end with the following code:

img {
  --b: 5px; /* border thickness */
  --c: #0000 90deg, darkblue 0; /* define the color here */
  padding: 10px;
  background:
    conic-gradient(from 90deg  at top    var(--b) left  var(--b), var(--c)) 0 0,
    conic-gradient(from 180deg at top    var(--b) right var(--b), var(--c)) 100% 0,
    conic-gradient(from 0deg   at bottom var(--b) left  var(--b), var(--c)) 0 100%,
    conic-gradient(from -90deg at bottom var(--b) right var(--b), var(--c)) 100% 100%;
  background-size: 50px 50px; /* adjust border length here */
  background-repeat: no-repeat;
}

I have introduced CSS variables to avoid some redundancy as all the gradients use the same color configuration.

For the hover effect, all I’m doing is increasing the size of the gradients to create the full frame:

img:hover {
  background-size: 51% 51%;
}

Yes, it’s 51% instead of 50% — that creates a small overlap and avoids possible gaps.

Let’s try another idea using the same technique:

This time we are using only two gradients, but with a more complex animation. First, we update the position of each gradient, then increase their sizes to create the full frame. I also introduced more variables for better control over the color, size, thickness, and even the gap between the image and the frame.

img {
  --b: 8px;  /* border thickness*/
  --s: 60px; /* size of the corner*/
  --g: 14px; /* the gap*/
  --c: #EDC951; 

  padding: calc(var(--b) + var(--g));
  background-image:
    conic-gradient(from  90deg at top    var(--b) left  var(--b), #0000 25%, var(--c) 0),
    conic-gradient(from -90deg at bottom var(--b) right var(--b), #0000 25%, var(--c) 0);
  background-position:
    var(--_p, 0%) var(--_p, 0%),
    calc(100% - var(--_p, 0%)) calc(100% - var(--_p, 0%));
  background-size: var(--s) var(--s);
  background-repeat: no-repeat;
  transition: 
    background-position .3s var(--_i,.3s), 
    background-size .3s calc(.3s - var(--_i, .3s));
}
img:hover {
  background-size: calc(100% - var(--g)) calc(100% - var(--g));
  --_p: calc(var(--g) / 2);
  --_i: 0s;
}

Why do the --_i and --_p variables have an underscore in their name? The underscores are part of a naming convention I use to consider “internal” variables used to optimize the code. They are nothing special but I want to make a difference between the variables we adjust to control the frame (like --b, --c, etc.) and the ones I use to make the code shorter.

The code may look confusing and not easy to grasp but I wrote a three-part series where I detail such technique. I highly recommend reading at least the first article to understand how I reached the above code.

Here is an illustration to better understand the different values:

Showing the same image of two classic cars three times to illustrate the CSS variables used in the code.

The Frame Reveal

Let’s try another type of animation where we reveal the full frame on hover:

Cool, right? And you if you look closely, you will notice that the lines disappear in the opposite direction on mouse out which makes the effect even more fancy! I used a similar effect in a previous article.

But this time, instead of covering all the element, I cover only a small portion by defining a height to get something like this:

This is the top border of our frame. We repeat the same process on each side of the image and we have our hover effect:

img {
  --b: 10px; /* the border thickness*/
  --g: 5px; /* the gap on hover */
  --c: #8A9B0F; 

  padding: calc(var(--g) + var(--b));
  --_g: no-repeat linear-gradient(var(--c) 0 0);
  background: 
    var(--_g) var(--_i, 0%) 0,
    var(--_g) 100% var(--_i, 0%),
    var(--_g) calc(100% - var(--_i, 0%)) 100%,
    var(--_g) 0 calc(100% - var(--_i, 0%));
  background-size: var(--_i, 0%) var(--b),var(--b) var(--_i, 0%);
  transition: .4s, background-position 0s;
  cursor: pointer;
}
img:hover {
  --_i: 100%;
}

As you can see, I am applying the same gradient four times and each one has a different position to cover only one side at a time.

Another one? Let’s go!

This one looks a bit tricky and it indeed does require some imagination to understand how two conic gradients are pulling off this kind of magic. Here is a demo to illustrate one of the gradients:

The pseudo-element simulates the gradient. It’s initially out of sight and, on hover, we first change its position to get the top edge of the frame. Then we increase the height to get the right edge. The gradient shape is similar to the ones we used in the last section: two segments to cover two sides.

But why did I make the gradient’s width 200%? You’d think 100% would be enough, right?

100% should be enough but I won’t be able to move the gradient like I want if I keep its width equal to 100%. That’s another little quirk related to how background-position works. I cover this in a previous article. I also posted an answer over at Stack Overflow dealing with this. I know it’s a lot of reading, but it’s really worth your time.

Now that we have explained the logic for one gradient, the second one is easy because it’s doing exactly the same thing, but covering the left and bottom edges instead. All we have to do is to swap a few values and we are done:

img {
  --c: #8A9B0F; /* the border color */
  --b: 10px; /* the border thickness*/
  --g: 5px;  /* the gap */

  padding: calc(var(--g) + var(--b));
  --_g: #0000 25%, var(--c) 0;
  background: 
    conic-gradient(from 180deg at top    var(--b) right var(--b), var(--_g))
     var(--_i, 200%) 0 / 200% var(--_i, var(--b))  no-repeat,
    conic-gradient(            at bottom var(--b) left  var(--b), var(--_g))
     0 var(--_i, 200%) / var(--_i, var(--b)) 200%  no-repeat;
  transition: .3s, background-position .3s .3s;
  cursor: pointer;
}
img:hover {
  --_i: 100%;
  transition: .3s, background-size .3s .3s;
}

As you can see, both gradients are almost identical. I am simply swapping the values of the size and position.

The Frame Rotation

This time we are not going to draw a frame around our image, but rather adjust the look of an existing one.

You are probably asking how the heck I am able to transform a straight line into an angled line. No, the magic is different than that. That’s just the illusion we get after combining simple animations for four gradients.

Let’s see how the animation for the top gradient is made:

I am simply updating the position of a repeating gradient. Nothing fancy yet! Let’s do the same for the right side:

Are you starting to see the trick? Both gradients intersect at the corner to create the illusion where the straight line is changed to an angled one. Let’s remove the outline and hide the overflow to better see it:

Now, we add two more gradients to cover the remaining edges and we are done:

img {
  --g: 4px; /* the gap */
  --b: 12px; /* border thickness*/
  --c: #669706; /* the color */

  padding: calc(var(--g) + var(--b));
  --_c: #0000 0 25%, var(--c) 0 50%;
  --_g1: repeating-linear-gradient(90deg ,var(--_c)) repeat-x;
  --_g2: repeating-linear-gradient(180deg,var(--_c)) repeat-y;
  background:
    var(--_g1) var(--_p, 25%) 0, 
    var(--_g2) 0 var(--_p, 125%),
    var(--_g1) var(--_p, 125%) 100%, 
    var(--_g2) 100% var(--_p, 25%);
  background-size: 200% var(--b), var(--b) 200%;
  transition: .3s;
}
img:hover {
  --_p: 75%;
}

If we take this code and slightly adjust it, we can get another cool animation:

Can you figure out the logic in this example? That’s your homework! The code may look scary but it uses the same logic as the previous examples we looked at. Try to isolate each gradient and imagine how it animates.

Wrapping up

That’s a lot of gradients in one article!

It sure is and I warned you! But if the challenge is to decorate an image without an extra elements and pseudo-elements, we are left with only a few possibilities and gradients are the most powerful option.

Don’t worry if you are a bit lost in some of the explanations. I always recommend some of my old articles where I go into greater detail with some of the concepts we recycled for this challenge.

I am gonna leave with one last demo to hold you over until the next article in this series. This time, I am using radial-gradient() to create another funny hover effect. I’ll let you dissect the code to grok how it works. Ask me questions in the comments if you get stuck!

Fancy Image Decorations series

  • Single Element Magic — you are here
  • Masks and Advanced Hover Effects (coming October 21 )
  • Outlines and Complex Animations (coming October 28 )

Fancy Image Decorations: Single Element Magic originally published on CSS-Tricks, which is part of the DigitalOcean family. You should get the newsletter.

How to Create Wavy Shapes & Patterns in CSS

The wave is probably one of the most difficult shapes to make in CSS. We always try to approximate it with properties like border-radius and lots of magic numbers until we get something that feels kinda close. And that’s before we even get into wavy patterns, which are more difficult.

“SVG it!” you might say, and you are probably right that it’s a better way to go. But we will see that CSS can make nice waves and the code for it doesn’t have to be all crazy. And guess what? I have an online generator to make it even more trivial!

If you play with the generator, you can see that the CSS it spits out is only two gradients and a CSS mask property — just those two things and we can make any kind of wave shape or pattern. Not to mention that we can easily control the size and the curvature of the waves while we’re at it.

Some of the values may look like “magic numbers” but there’s actually logic behind them and we will dissect the code and discover all the secrets behind creating waves.

This article is a follow-up to a previous one where I built all kinds of different zig-zag, scoped, scalloped, and yes, wavy border borders. I highly recommend checking that article as it uses the same technique we will cover here, but in greater detail.

The math behind waves

Strictly speaking, there isn’t one magic formula behind wavy shapes. Any shape with curves that go up and down can be called a wave, so we are not going to restrict ourselves to complex math. Instead, we will reproduce a wave using the basics of geometry.

Let’s start with a simple example using two circle shapes:

Two gray circles.

We have two circles with the same radius next to each other. Do you see that red line? It covers the top half of the first circle and the bottom half of the second one. Now imagine you take that line and repeat it.

A squiggly red line in the shape of waves.

We already see the wave. Now let’s fill the bottom part (or the top one) to get the following:

Red wave pattern.

Tada! We have a wavy shape, and one that we can control using one variable for the circle radii. This is one of the easiest waves we can make and it’s the one I showed off in this previous article

Let’s add a bit of complexity by taking the first illustration and moving the circles a little:

Two gray circles with two bisecting dashed lines indicating spacing.

We still have two circles with the same radii but they are no longer horizontally aligned. In this case, the red line no longer covers half the area of each circle, but a smaller area instead. This area is limited by the dashed red line. That line crosses the point where both circles meet.

Now take that line and repeat it and you get another wave, a smoother one.

A red squiggly line.
A red wave pattern.

I think you get the idea. By controlling the position and size of the circles, we can create any wave we want. We can even create variables for them, which I will call P and S, respectively.

You have probably noticed that, in the online generator, we control the wave using two inputs. They map to the above variables. S is the “Size of the wave” and P is the “curvature of the wave”.

I am defining P as P = m*S where m is the variable you adjust when updating the curvature of the wave. This allows us to always have the same curvature, even if we update S.

m can be any value between 0 and 2. 0 will give us the first particular case where both circles are aligned horizontally. 2 is a kind of maximum value. We can go bigger, but after a few tests I found that anything above 2 produces bad, flat shapes.

Let’s not forget the radius of our circle! That can also be defined using S and P like this:

R = sqrt(P² + S²)/2

When P is equal to 0, we will have R = S/2.

We have everything to start converting all of this into gradients in CSS!

Creating gradients

Our waves use circles, and when talking about circles we talk about radial gradients. And since two circles define our wave, we will logically be using two radial gradients.

We will start with the particular case where P is equal to 0. Here is the illustration of the first gradient:

This gradient creates the first curvature while filling in the entire bottom area —the “water” of the wave so to speak.

.wave {
  --size: 50px;

  mask: radial-gradient(var(--size) at 50% 0%, #0000 99%, red 101%) 
    50% var(--size)/calc(4 * var(--size)) 100% repeat-x;
}

The --size variable defines the radius and the size of the radial gradient. If we compare it with the S variable, then it’s equal to S/2.

Now let’s add the second gradient:

The second gradient is nothing but a circle to complete our wave:

radial-gradient(var(--size) at 50% var(--size), blue 99%, #0000 101%) 
  calc(50% - 2*var(--size)) 0/calc(4 * var(--size)) 100%

If you check the previous article you will see that I am simply repeating what I already did there.

I followed both articles but the gradient configurations are not the same.

That’s because we can reach the same result using different gradient configurations. You will notice a slight difference in the alignment if you compare both configurations, but the trick is the same. This can be confusing if you are unfamiliar with gradients, but don’t worry. With some practice, you get used to them and you will find by yourself that different syntax can lead to the same result.

Here is the full code for our first wave:

.wave {
  --size: 50px;

  mask:
    radial-gradient(var(--size) at 50% var(--size),#000 99%, #0000 101%) 
      calc(50% - 2*var(--size)) 0/calc(4 * var(--size)) 100%,
    radial-gradient(var(--size) at 50% 0px, #0000 99%, #000 101%) 
      50% var(--size)/calc(4 * var(--size)) 100% repeat-x;
}

Now let’s take this code and adjust it to where we introduce a variable that makes this fully reusable for creating any wave we want. As we saw in the previous section, the main trick is to move the circles so they are no more aligned so let’s update the position of each one. We will move the first one up and the second down.

Our code will look like this:

.wave {
  --size: 50px;
  --p: 25px;

  mask:
    radial-gradient(var(--size) at 50% calc(var(--size) + var(--p)), #000 99%, #0000 101%) 
      calc(50% - 2*var(--size)) 0/calc(4 * var(--size)) 100%,
    radial-gradient(var(--size) at 50% calc(-1*var(--p)), #0000 99%, #000 101%) 
      50% var(--size) / calc(4 * var(--size)) 100% repeat-x;
}

I have introduced a new --p variable that’s used it to define the center position of each circle. The first gradient is using 50% calc(-1*var(--p)), so its center moves up while the second one is using calc(var(--size) + var(--p)) to move it down.

A demo is worth a thousand words:

The circles are neither aligned nor touch one another. We spaced them far apart without changing their radii, so we lost our wave. But we can fix things up by using the same math we used earlier to calculate the new radius. Remember that R = sqrt(P² + S²)/2. In our case, --size is equal to S/2; the same for --p which is also equal to P/2 since we are moving both circles. So, the distance between their center points is double the value of --p for this:

R = sqrt(var(--size) * var(--size) + var(--p) * var(--p))

That gives us a result of 55.9px.

Our wave is back! Let’s plug that equation into our CSS:

.wave {
  --size: 50px;
  --p: 25px;
  --R: sqrt(var(--p) * var(--p) + var(--size)*var(--size));

  mask:
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at 50% calc(var(--size) + var(--p)), #000 99%, #0000 101%) 
      calc(50% - 2*var(--size)) 0 / calc(4 * var(--size)) 100%,
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at 50% calc(-1*var(--p)), #0000 99%, #000 101%) 
      50% var(--size)/calc(4 * var(--size)) 100% repeat-x;
}

This is valid CSS code. sqrt() is part of the specification, but at the time I’m writing this, there is no browser support for it. That means we need a sprinkle of JavaScript or Sass to calculate that value until we get broader sqrt() support.

This is pretty darn cool: all it takes is two gradients to get a cool wave that you can apply to any element using the mask property. No more trial and error — all you need is to update two variables and you’re good to go!

Reversing the wave

What if we want the waves going the other direction, where we’re filling in the “sky” instead of the “water”. Believe it or not, all we have to do is to update two values:

.wave {
  --size: 50px;
  --p: 25px;
  --R: sqrt(var(--p) * var(--p) + var(--size) * var(--size));

  mask:
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at 50% calc(100% - (var(--size) + var(--p))), #000 99%, #0000 101%)
      calc(50% - 2 * var(--size)) 0/calc(4 * var(--size)) 100%,
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at 50% calc(100% + var(--p)), #0000 99%, #000 101%) 
      50% calc(100% - var(--size)) / calc(4 * var(--size)) 100% repeat-x;
}

All I did there is add an offset equal to 100%, highlighted above. Here’s the result:

We can consider a more friendly syntax using keyword values to make it even easier:

.wave {
  --size: 50px;
  --p: 25px;
  --R: sqrt(var(--p)*var(--p) + var(--size) * var(--size));

  mask:
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at left 50% bottom calc(var(--size) + var(--p)), #000 99%, #0000 101%) 
      calc(50% - 2 * var(--size)) 0/calc(4 * var(--size)) 100%,
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at left 50% bottom calc(-1 * var(--p)), #0000 99%, #000 101%) 
      left 50% bottom var(--size) / calc(4 * var(--size)) 100% repeat-x;
}

We’re using the left and bottom keywords to specify the sides and the offset. By default, the browser defaults to left and top — that’s why we use 100% to move the element to the bottom. In reality, we are moving it from the top by 100%, so it’s really the same as saying bottom. Much easier to read than math!

With this updated syntax, all we have to do is to swap bottom for top — or vice versa — to change the direction of the wave.

And if you want to get both top and bottom waves, we combine all the gradients in a single declaration:

.wave {
  --size: 50px;
  --p: 25px;
  --R: sqrt(var(--p)*var(--p) + var(--size)*var(--size));

  mask:
    /* Gradient 1 */
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at left 50% bottom calc(var(--size) + var(--p)), #000 99%, #0000 101%) 
      left calc(50% - 2*var(--size)) bottom 0 / calc(4 * var(--size)) 51% repeat-x,
    /* Gradient 2 */
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at left 50% bottom calc(-1 * var(--p)), #0000 99%, #000 101%) 
      left 50% bottom var(--size) / calc(4 * var(--size)) calc(51% - var(--size)) repeat-x,
    /* Gradient 3 */
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at left 50% top calc(var(--size) + var(--p)), #000 99%, #0000 101%) 
      left calc(50% - 2 * var(--size)) top 0 / calc(4 * var(--size)) 51% repeat-x,
    /* Gradient 4 */
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at left 50% top calc(-1 * var(--p)), #0000 99%, #000 101%) 
      left 50% top var(--size) / calc(4 * var(--size)) calc(51% - var(--size)) repeat-x;
}

If you check the code, you will see that in addition to combining all the gradients, I have also reduced their height from 100% to 51% so that they both cover half of the element. Yes, 51%. We need that little extra percent for a small overlap that avoid gaps.

What about the left and right sides?

It’s your homework! Take what we did with the top and bottom sides and try to update the values to get the right and left values. Don’t worry, it’s easy and the only thing you need to do is to swap values.

If you have trouble, you can always use the online generator to check the code and visualize the result.

Wavy lines

Earlier, we made our first wave using a red line then filled the bottom portion of the element. How about that wavy line? That’s a wave too! Even better is if we can control its thickness with a variable so we can reuse it. Let’s do it!

We are not going to start from scratch but rather take the previous code and update it. The first thing to do is to update the color stops of the gradients. Both gradients start from a transparent color to an opaque one, or vice versa. To simulate a line or border, we need to start from transparent, go to opaque, then back to transparent again:

#0000 calc(99% - var(--b)), #000 calc(101% - var(--b)) 99%, #0000 101%

I think you already guessed that the --b variable is what we’re using to control the line thickness. Let’s apply this to our gradients:

Yeah, the result is far from a wavy line. But looking closely, we can see that one gradient is correctly creating the bottom curvature. So, all we really need to do is rectify the second gradient. Instead of keeping a full circle, let’s make partial one like the other gradient.

Still far, but we have both curvatures we need! If you check the code, you will see that we have two identical gradients. The only difference is their positioning:

.wave {
  --size: 50px;
  --b: 10px;
  --p: 25px;
  --R: sqrt(var(--p)*var(--p) + var(--size)*var(--size));

  --_g: #0000 calc(99% - var(--b)), #000 calc(101% - var(--b)) 99%, #0000 101%;
  mask:
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at left 50% bottom calc(-1*var(--p)), var(--_g)) 
      calc(50% - 2*var(--size)) 0/calc(4*var(--size)) 100%,
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at left 50% top    calc(-1*var(--p)), var(--_g)) 
      50% var(--size)/calc(4*var(--size)) 100%;
}

Now we need to adjust the size and position for the final shape. We no longer need the gradient to be full-height, so we can replace 100% with this:

/* Size plus thickness */
calc(var(--size) + var(--b))

There is no mathematical logic behind this value. It only needs to be big enough for the curvature. We will see its effect on the pattern in just a bit. In the meantime, let’s also update the position to vertically center the gradients:

.wave {
  --size: 50px;
  --b: 10px;
  --p: 25px;
  --R: sqrt(var(--p)*var(--p) + var(--size)*var(--size));

  --_g: #0000 calc(99% - var(--b)), #000 calc(101% - var(--b)) 99%, #0000 101%;  
  mask:
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at left 50% bottom calc(-1*var(--p)), var(--_g)) 
      calc(50% - 2*var(--size)) 50%/calc(4 * var(--size)) calc(var(--size) + var(--b)) no-repeat,
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at left 50% top calc(-1 * var(--p)), var(--_g)) 50%
      50%/calc(4 * var(--size)) calc(var(--size) + var(--b)) no-repeat;
}

Still not quite there:

One gradient needs to move a bit down and the other a bit up. Both need to move by half of their height.

We are almost there! We need a small fix for the radius to have a perfect overlap. Both lines need to offset by half the border (--b) thickness:

We got it! A perfect wavy line that we can easily adjust by controlling a few variables:

.wave {
  --size: 50px;
  --b: 10px;
  --p: 25px;
  --R: calc(sqrt(var(--p) * var(--p) + var(--size) * var(--size)) + var(--b) / 2);

  --_g: #0000 calc(99% - var(--b)), #000 calc(101% - var(--b)) 99%, #0000 101%;
  mask:
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at left 50% bottom calc(-1 * var(--p)), var(--_g)) 
     calc(50% - 2*var(--size)) calc(50% - var(--size)/2 - var(--b)/2) / calc(4 * var(--size)) calc(var(--size) + var(--b)) repeat-x,
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at left 50% top calc(-1*var(--p)),var(--_g)) 
     50%  calc(50% + var(--size)/2 + var(--b)/2) / calc(4 * var(--size)) calc(var(--size) + var(--b)) repeat-x;
}

I know that the logic takes a bit to grasp. That’s fine and as I said, creating a wavy shape in CSS is not easy, not to mention the tricky math behind it. That’s why the online generator is a lifesaver — you can easily get the final code even if you don’t fully understand the logic behind it.

Wavy patterns

We can make a pattern from the wavy line we just created!

Oh no, the code of the pattern will be even more difficult to understand!

Not at all! We already have the code. All we need to do is to remove repeat-x from what we already have, and tada. 🎉

A nice wavy pattern. Remember the equation I said we’d revisit?

/* Size plus thickness */
calc(var(--size) + var(--b))

Well, this is what controls the distance between the lines in the pattern. We can make a variable out of it, but there’s no need for more complexity. I’m not even using a variable for that in the generator. Maybe I’ll change that later.

Here is the same pattern going in a different direction:

I am providing you with the code in that demo, but I’d for you to dissect it and understand what changes I made to make that happen.

Simplifying the code

In all the previous demos, we always define the --size and --p independently. But do you recall how I mentioned earlier that the online generator evaluates P as equal to m*S, where m controls the curvature of the wave? By defining a fixed multiplier, we can work with one particular wave and the code can become easier. This is what we will need in most cases: a specific wavy shape and a variable to control its size.

Let’s update our code and introduce the m variable:

.wave {
  --size: 50px;
  --R: calc(var(--size) * sqrt(var(--m) * var(--m) + 1));

  mask:
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at 50% calc(var(--size) * (1 + var(--m))), #000 99%, #0000 101%) 
      calc(50% - 2*var(--size)) 0/calc(4 * var(--size)) 100%,
    radial-gradient(var(--R) at 50% calc(-1 * var(--size) * var(--m)), #0000 99%, #000 101%) 
      50% var(--size) / calc(4 * var(--size)) 100% repeat-x;
  }

As you can see, we no longer need the --p variable. I replaced it with var(--m)*var(--size), and optimized some of the math accordingly. Now, If we want to work with a particular wavy shape, we can omit the --m variable and replace it with a fixed value. Let’s try .8 for example.

--size: 50px;
--R: calc(var(--size) * 1.28);

mask:
  radial-gradient(var(--R) at 50% calc(1.8 * var(--size)), #000 99%, #0000 101%) 
    calc(50% - 2*var(--size)) 0/calc(4 * var(--size)) 100%,
  radial-gradient(var(--R) at 50% calc(-.8 * var(--size)), #0000 99%, #000 101%) 
    50% var(--size) / calc(4 * var(--size)) 100% repeat-x;

See how the code is easier now? Only one variable to control your wave, plus you no more need to rely on sqrt() which has no browser support!

You can apply the same logic to all the demos we saw even for the wavy lines and the pattern. I started with a detailed mathmatical explanation and gave the generic code, but you may find yourself needing easier code in a real use case. This is what I am doing all the time. I rarely use the generic code, but I always consider a simplified version especially that, in most of the cases, I am using some known values that don’t need to be stored as variables. (Spoiler alert: I will be sharing a few examples at the end!)

Limitations to this approach

Mathematically, the code we made should give us perfect wavy shapes and patterns, but in reality, we will face some strange results. So, yes, this method has its limitations. For example, the online generator is capable of producing poor results, especially with wavy lines. Part of the issue is due to a particular combination of values where the result gets scrambled, like using a big value for the border thickness compared to the size:

For the other cases, it’s the issue related to some rounding that will results in misalignment and gaps between the waves:

That said, I still think the method we covered remains a good one because it produces smooth waves in most cases, and we can easily avoid the bad results by playing with different values until we get it perfect.

Wrapping up

I hope that after this article, you will no more to fumble around with trial and error to build a wavy shape or pattern. In addition to the online generator, you have all the math secrets behind creating any kind of wave you want!

The article ends here but now you have a powerful tool to create fancy designs that use wavy shapes. Here’s inspiration to get you started…

What about you? Use my online generator (or write the code manually if you already learned all the math by heart) and show me your creations! Let’s have a good collection in the comment section.


How to Create Wavy Shapes & Patterns in CSS originally published on CSS-Tricks, which is part of the DigitalOcean family. You should get the newsletter.

Nested Gradients with background-clip

I can't say I use background-clip all that often. I'd wager it's hardly ever used in day-to-day CSS work. But I was reminded of it in a post by Stefan Judis, which coincidentally was itself a learning-response post to a post over here by Ana Tudor.

Here's a quick explanation.

You've probably seen this thing a million times:

The box model visualizer in DevTools.

That's showing you the size and position of an element, as well as how that size is made up: content size, padding, margin, and border.

Those things aren't just theoretical to help with understanding and debugging. Elements actually have a content-box, padding-box, and border-box. Perhaps we encounter that most often when we literally set the box-sizing property. (It's tremendously useful to universally set it to border-box).

Those values are the same values as background-clip uses! Meaning that you can set a background to only cover those specific areas. And because multiple backgrounds is a thing, that means we can have multiple backgrounds with different clipping on each.

Like this:

See the Pen
Multiple background-clip
by Chris Coyier (@chriscoyier)
on CodePen.

But that's boring and there are many ways to pull off that effect, like using borders, outline, and box-shadow or any combination of them.

What is more interesting is the fact that those backgrounds could be gradients, and that's a lot harder to pull off any other way!

See the Pen
Nested Gradients
by Chris Coyier (@chriscoyier)
on CodePen.

The post Nested Gradients with background-clip appeared first on CSS-Tricks.

Managing Multiple Backgrounds with Custom Properties

One cool thing about CSS custom properties is that they can be a part of a value. Let's say you're using multiple backgrounds to pull off a a design. Each background will have its own color, image, repeat, position, etc. It can be verbose!

You have four images:

body {
  
  background-position:
    top 10px left 10px,
    top 10px right 10px,
    bottom 10px right 10px,
    bottom 10px left 10px;
  
  background-repeat: no-repeat;
  
  background-image:
    url(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s.cdpn.io/3/angles-top-left.svg),
    url(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s.cdpn.io/3/angles-top-right.svg),
    url(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s.cdpn.io/3/angles-bottom-right.svg),
    url(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s.cdpn.io/3/angles-bottom-left.svg);
  
}

You want to add a fifth in a media query:

@media (min-width: 1500px) {
  body {
    /* REPEAT all existing backgrounds, then add a fifth. */
  }
}

That's going to be super verbose! You'll have to repeat each of those four images again, then add the fifth. Lots of duplication there.

One possibility is to create a variable for the base set, then add the fifth much more cleanly:

body {
  --baseBackgrounds: 
    url(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s.cdpn.io/3/angles-top-left.svg),
    url(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s.cdpn.io/3/angles-top-right.svg),
    url(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s.cdpn.io/3/angles-bottom-right.svg),
    url(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s.cdpn.io/3/angles-bottom-left.svg);

  background-position:
    top 10px left 10px,
    top 10px right 10px,
    bottom 10px right 10px,
    bottom 10px left 10px;
  
  background-repeat: no-repeat;
  
  background-image: var(--baseBackgrounds);
}
@media (min-width: 1500px) {
  body {
    background-image: 
      var(--baseBackgrounds),
      url(added-fifth-background.svg);
  }
}

But, it's really up to you. It might make more sense and be easier manage if you made each background image into a variable, and then pieced them together as needed.

body {
  --bg1: url(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s.cdpn.io/3/angles-top-left.svg);
  --bg2: url(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s.cdpn.io/3/angles-top-right.svg);
  --bg3: url(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s.cdpn.io/3/angles-bottom-right.svg);
  --bg4: url(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s.cdpn.io/3/angles-bottom-left.svg);
  --bg5: url(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s.cdpn.io/3/angles-bottom-left.svg);
  
  background-image: var(--bg1), var(--bg2), var(--bg3), var(--bg4);
}
@media (min-width: 1500px) {
  body {
    background-image: var(--bg1), var(--bg2), var(--bg3), var(--bg4), var(--bg5);
  }
}

Here's a basic version of that, including a supports query:

See the Pen
Multiple BGs with Custom Properties
by Chris Coyier (@chriscoyier)
on CodePen.

Dynamically changing just the part of a value is a huge strength of CSS custom properties!

Note, too, that with backgrounds, it might be best to include the entire shorthand as the variable. That way, it's much easier to piece everything together at once, rather than needing something like...

--bg_1_url: url();
--bg_1_size: 100px;
--bg_1_repeat: no-repeat;
/* etc. */

It's easier to put all of the properties into shorthand and use as needed:

body {  
  --bg_1: url(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s.cdpn.io/3/angles-top-left.svg) top 10px left 10px / 86px no-repeat;
  --bg_2: url(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s.cdpn.io/3/angles-top-right.svg) top 10px right 10px / 86px no-repeat;
  --bg_3: url(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s.cdpn.io/3/angles-bottom-right.svg) bottom 10px right 10px / 86px no-repeat;
  --bg_4: url(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s.cdpn.io/3/angles-bottom-left.svg) bottom 10px left 10px  / 86px no-repeat;
    
  background:
    var(--bg_1), var(--bg_2),var(--bg_3),var(--bg_4);
}

Like this.

The post Managing Multiple Backgrounds with Custom Properties appeared first on CSS-Tricks.

Multiple Background Clip

You know how you can have multiple backgrounds?

body {
  background-image: 
    url(image-one.jpg),
    url(image-two.jpg);
}

That's just background-image. You can set their position too, as you might expect. We'll shorthand it:

body {
  background: 
    url(image-one.jpg) no-repeat top right,
    url(image-two.jpg) no-repeat bottom left;
}

I snuck background-repeat in there just for fun. Another one you might not think of setting for multiple different backgrounds, though, is background-clip. In this linked article, Stefan Judis notes that this unlocks some pretty legit CSS-Trickery!

Direct Link to ArticlePermalink

The post Multiple Background Clip appeared first on CSS-Tricks.