large image

[windandwaves]

Hi Folk

If you have a large image does it make sense to slice it to make it
load faster? If so, what would be the best way?

Please dont ask me why to have a large image in the first place - that
is a given...

TIA

 

[dorayme]

Hi Folk

If you have a large image does it make sense to slice it to make it
load faster? If so, what would be the best way?

Please dont ask me why to have a large image in the first place - that
is a given...

TIA

The idea of slicing to save is dependent on you preparing the
different slices differently. In other words, there is no point
at all simply slicing and having the overhead of a "display"
table to boot. If you have parts of an image that can be heavily
compressed without affecting the look you want, and other parts
not so amenable, there might be an argument if bandwidth is
really at such a premium and the pic is so large as to warrant
it. But I'd say not to bother, it is a small k gain at best and
there are many downfalls, namely getting the bits to render well
cross browser. The way to do it is usually to use a generator in
prgms like Fireworks and these work best when there are lots of
filler clear gifs to pad the table out right! It is not a nice
road to travel. It is sometimes done where you want to have
ordinary html text in the midst of it all (which generates
problems too).

 

[the red dot]

Hi Folk

If you have a large image does it make sense to slice it to make it
load faster? If so, what would be the best way?

Please dont ask me why to have a large image in the first place - that
is a given...

it all depends on how you want to use it, what is it for, what is it
supposed to do?

 

[Nik Coughlin]

Hi Folk

If you have a large image does it make sense to slice it to make it
load faster? If so, what would be the best way?

Slicing images is almost never a good idea.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit windandwaves:

If you have a large image does it make sense to slice it to make it
load faster?

No, just the opposite. It takes more time to transfer the data (due to
various overhead factors like HTTP transaction) and more time to assemble
the image. Perhaps worst of all, users may see the image being built from
slices in some order, possibly in some strange order.

Please dont ask me why to have a large image in the first place - that
is a given...

No, we really want to help you with that problem. We ask everything you
should have asked but didn't dare to. But you must help us to help you by
posting the URL of your current draft page and explain what you're doing.

 

[windandwaves]

Scripsit windandwaves:


No, just the opposite. It takes more time to transfer the data (due to
various overhead factors like HTTP transaction) and more time to assemble
the image. Perhaps worst of all, users may see the image being built from
slices in some order, possibly in some strange order.


No, we really want to help you with that problem. We ask everything you
should have asked but didn't dare to. But you must help us to help you by
posting the URL of your current draft page and explain what you're doing.

Hey Guys

Thank you all for your replies... Much appreciated. I will just
leave it as one image. I dont have a URL yet, but sliced images are
definitely dead by the sounds of it.

 

[J.O. Aho]

Scripsit windandwaves:


No, just the opposite. It takes more time to transfer the data (due to
various overhead factors like HTTP transaction) and more time to
assemble the image. Perhaps worst of all, users may see the image being
built from slices in some order, possibly in some strange order.

Not to mention that the sliced image takes more space with the image type and
other extra data. The sliced image takes more hard drive space than the single
image, specially on file systems with high block size that don't support
multiple files to use one block.

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

Not to mention that the sliced image takes more space with the image
type and other extra data. The sliced image takes more hard drive space
than the single image, specially on file systems with high block size
that don't support multiple files to use one block.

which wouldn't be that much of an issue these days as bandwidth seems to
be more crucial to a webserver than disk space

cheers
bernhard

 

[J.O. Aho]

which wouldn't be that much of an issue these days as bandwidth seems to
be more crucial to a webserver than disk space

With the extra "headers" on the files you use up extra bandwidth.
Even the servers don't have unlimited disk space, and specially on some
systems you hit quite fast the upper limit of the file system size, but of
course the customers don't care about that.