So I just created a blog on Blogspot. And I'm currently using a simple free blog template from the internet.
You can refer my blog here - https://hariinisayarasa.blogspot.com
Im using the free template from here - https://www.way2themes.com/2020/08/sylva-blogger-template.html
As you can see, you can compare the slider image on my blog is blurry and pixelated compared to the one on the Demo Page here - https://sylva-way2themes.blogspot.com/
Is there any way I can resize my image or any setting that can be done in my template coding so that the slider images are not blurry anymore?
Please let me know if I can provide any code for you so that you can help me solve this problem.
Or you can download the code here - https://www.way2themes.com/2020/08/sylva-blogger-template.html
One of the simplest ways to resize an image in the HTML is using the height and width attributes on the img tag. These values specify the height and width of the image element.
Resizing img with HTML
<img src="https://ik.imagekit.io/ikmedia/women-dress-2.jpg"
width="400"
height="500" />
Resizing img with CSS
img { width: 400px, height: 300px}
From what I've seen, you're using very small raster images.
notice the 'intrinsic size' property
same goes here
Photographs are always saved as raster images. It means that the data of an image is stored in the form of a pixel map - a matrix of squares. If you try to scale the image up, every pixel is also scaled up. Therefore, you lose quality, and the pictures seem pixelated/blurry.
There's no way to keep both the size and detail. Alternatively, you could try to keep the initial size of an image (or at least scale down) - this would, on the other hand, not fill the entire container space.
now check the intrinsic size of one of the images on the demo page
The more scaled image is, the more blurry it gets. The pictures on the demo page have the scale aspect of 2. However, your photo that is 72 x 72px has been scaled up a lot more.
If those photos have been taken by you in higher quality, you might want to use the raw version.
I would like to find out how to present a banner or logo on a responsive design but I can't find a question that is not flagged as bad or likely to be closed. I've tried numerous ways of phrasing the question and none of them are liked. So, I have no idea how to even present this question or even where to begin to look for the answer or how to ask the question. PLEASE, PLEASE give me an idea of how to word this so someone will see my question. I've tried web searches but nothing addresses the issue and I cannot even figure out how to work it.
In case someone sees this, what I am doing is taking a site that was not responsive and had a banner that was 1100 px wide by 110px in height. The trend seems to be to move away from such banners and use logos that are square or round instead or to use text for branding. If I just reduced the size of the banner to 500px wide then the height would proportionally decrease to only 40 or 50px if a percent value was used. That clearly won't look good on a small screen.
Also, if I reduced the image to a more square dimension the image isn't actually resizing by percent values when the CSS background-image style is used instead of an img tag surrounded by div tags. I haven't found a way to control alignment and size using percent values on the background-image property of a container. I could tell my client that we shouldn't use a wide banner in a responsive design but I don't know if that means I am missing an option.
A different image seems to be required on smaller displays using media queries. Can alignment and resizing as percent values be used with the background image CSS style or should different images be served using the img tag?
Lastly, on a high pixel density display tablet or even smartphone serve a large image due to the number of pixels wide being greater than 900px or 1000px? With high-density displays, it seems that even a smartphone could have a width greater than 1000px but that may not look right.
this will size it:
.img-class {
background-image: url('path/myImage.png');
background-size: 200px 200px;
}
first value is width, second value is height, you can also use %, or to scale the whole thing use a single value like for example: background-size: 80%;
A different image seems to be required on smaller displays using media
queries. Can alignment and resizing as percent values be used with the
background image CSS style or should different images be served using
the img tag?
Yes as long as you scale it down and not up, or it blurs out.
Lastly, on a high pixel density display tablet or even smartphone
serve a large image due to the number of pixels wide being greater
than 900px or 1000px? With high-density displays, it seems that even a
smartphone could have a width greater than 1000px but that may not
look right.
Just be sure your images are 'retina ready' and that's all, meaning if you want to place on your website a 200x200 px image, create it 400x400 px instead, then using css you force it to always be 200x200, so it will read a 400x400 and resize it to 200x200 making it not blurred on mobile.
Side note: If you have graphic images and not photographs, i recommend you using svg (vector images) now supported on all browsers, that are scalable so retina ready by default let's say, and way smaller in size.
I found a similar question here, with the answer: "you should always define the width and height in the image tag." But it is from 2009.
In the meantime, many things has changed on frontend. We are all doing responsive page design now, for many devices and sizes simultaneously (mobile, tablet, desktop...).
So, I wonder is it still necessary to specify the width and height attributes, and for what reason (for responsive, page speed, SEO...)?
An img element has width and height attributes, but they're not required under any DOCTYPE.
Width and height attributes were only 'required' or relevant to reserve the space on the page and prevent the page moving around as it loads - which is important. This can be achieved using CSS instead providing the CSS loads quickly enough - it is likely to load before the images anyway, so all should be good.
It is also possible (and valid) to specify just one attribute, width or height and the browser will calculate the omitted value in order to maintain the correct aspect ratio.
You can specify percent values in the attributes if required. You don't need to use CSS for this, if that is what you are implying.
Also, it is relevant to add - Under HTML5 the width and height can only take a pixel value, in other words a valid non-negative integer.
Whether you use the width and height attributes can depend on your design. If you have lots of differently sized images, do you want to lump all the dimensions in the CSS or include them with the img?
YES, you want to declare the width and the height of an image in 2016.
To make them retina-ready
If you want your image to be retina-ready, you should define a width and an height lower than the actual pixels. If the image is 800x600 specify <img width="400" height="300" />.
To avoid page jump
Without the width and the height the image does not know how large it is, which causes an unwanted jump in the page as it loads (it reflows). Declaring height and width solves this problem.
Note that:
Images with a defined width and height can still be responsive. Simply add max-width and max-height to your CSS. This will cause the image to scale down (not up) when it does not fit the screen (see this sweet retina-ready, responsive kitten). Defining a min-width and min-height will do the opposite.
Adding a huge amount of compression to your JPG (around 50%) to keep the file size low is recommended when you use a single (relative large) image for all screen sizes.
Well, the basic answer to this question (as with most coding issues) is this: it depends on the situation at hand.
I would say that the “best practice” of always specifying the height and width attributes of images making a significant difference to page rendering speeds hark back to the days when designers laid out their websites using tables and spacer GIFs. We have come a long way since then.
An indication for the future is the introduction of the new picture element being drafted into HTML. The picture element is effectively a wrapper for the existing img element, which allows you to specify several images of different sizes via a source element, and the user-agent itself actually determines which version is used.
<picture>
<source media="(min-width: 64em)" src="high-res.jpg">
<source media="(min-width: 37.5em)" src="med-res.jpg">
<source src="low-res.jpg">
<img src="fallback.jpg" alt="This picture loads on non-supporting browsers.">
<p>Accessible text.</p>
</picture>
As you can see from this example code above (taken from the Intel Developer Zone's article on the HTML5 picture element) there are no height or width attributes on the img element itself.
Here are a selection of resources that will help you to decide the most appropriate method of declaring image sizes:
Responsive Images Community Group
W3C Working Group Note: Use Cases and Requirements for Standardizing Responsive Images
WHATWG HTML Living Standard: The picture element
Good standards are always worth a recommendation. With a little extra code it's quite easy to merge static (px) values of the img tag and generic (em, %) values supplied by CSS. And simpler still, get rid of the img tag altogether and set the picture as background of a div with a unique ID. If you have multiple images, use sprites and assign each picture to its corresponding div. Your mark-up sources would then look something like <div id="image_001"></div> - that's all. Scales all by itself; no need for bloatware like JQuery, etc.
If we're talking 'bout responsive, you may use bootstrap (if not, start doing this).
When working with images, you should add the class img-responsive, this will modify the width of the image if necessary and the height will be auto, so if width decreases, height will decrease too.
You will always have an image that keeps the same % of its container and will never loose the aspect ratio.
There's no relation with SEO and image size declarations.
Page speed will be the same always, so if the image is 800 x 600 px, you'll load the full image, even if you declare it as 60 x 40 px.
You must think that, even using img-responsive, the max width and height of this image will be the real size of the image. So if we have a 800 x 600 px image, it will not enlarge it (because it'll become loosing quality).
So in 2016, it's recommendable to NOT declare height and width of an image. Instead use bootstrap's img-responsive class, other responsive framework class that gets the same result, or hand-made the proper jquery and css to reach the same.
Hope it helps!
Yes, It is still relevant to specify width and height attribute on images in HTML.
Images often take longer to load than the HTML code that makes up the rest of the page. It is, therefore, a good idea to specify the size of
the image so that the browser can render the rest of the text on the
page while leaving the right amount of space for the image that is
still loading.
Hence, specifying width and height attribute on image will improve the webpage performance by protecting from delay in loading.
Yes, it is necessary to add height and width attributes to the img tag along with the src and alt attributes to prevent page-jumping. When our page loads, the specified space will be preserved for the image so that the it can occupy that place peacefully.
But, there is another problem that will arise here Responsiveness.
Once we give height and width attribute to img tag, the image will tend to stay in the same height for all screen-sizes which will make the image to shrink.
To avoid this, we need to add height: auto; to the image in the CSS file.
I am totally fresh to html language. In the image attached in the html, something we need to specify the width of the image by the following tag
<img width=350 src='/var/tmp.jpg'/>
So what is unit of the width here? I guess it is in pixel? If that's in pixel, does it mean that the size of the image actually relative to the resolution of the display? I open a webpage with a image shown in the width of 350 in different machine with different display of different resolution. I measure of the width of the image shown on the screen, they are the same. So is that any way to I figure out the absolute width of the image in cm or mm (in php)?
pixels. the answer must be 30 chars long. so I'm typing more.
you can't really work out the absolute width/height in the end display. If you are targeting a specific resolution /screen size then you can work backwards.
users can change their screen resolution with ease, so that affects how big/small the final result is. As a rough guide, its 96dpi (dots per inch), while new iphone displays can be over 300dpi.
I'm writing a small program on the iPad whose task is to display the contents of an html file. I use document.documentElement.scrollHeight (pageYOffset etc.) to paginate.
My problem is with images. Sometimes an image gets cut in half such that 50% of the image is on page 1 the other 50% is on page 2. How can I fix this?
Thanks.
Why not style your images with CSS and use a percentage value so that it scales to fit the screen?
You might also want to checkout Responsive Design.