I want to use a highly responsive logo text with a custom font. I realised that almost every browser is not supporting SVG fonts, which means that it's not an option: http://caniuse.com/#feat=svg-fonts.
What options are there and what is the right way of solving the problem?
I could add an image with high resolution and scale it down?
Just use Header-tag? But how could you scale it based on the width of the screen?
Is there a vector based option other than SVG?
The fact that your logo is only letters doesn't mean that it has to be letters. In reality, they are just shapes that resemble letters.
Make an svg shape, or a large enough .png and you can scale it as you like.
People don't care if it is pure text, svg, png or jpg, they will read it anyways. And I believe nobody will try to select it or copy-paste it, and if you want it to be readable by screen readers, just add it's texts in the alt attribute.
Related
Now that the important browsers support loading="lazy" for images, does that now redefine best practices about page length and total number of images?
Is it now OK to make long HTML pages with 20 or more images on one page? If not 20 what about 10?
You can use a color image placeholder. Instead of using a fixed color for the image placeholder, you can find the dominant color from the original image and use that as a placeholder. This technique has been used for quite some time by Google in its image search results and by Pinterest in its grid design.
This might look complex to achieve, but you can accomplish this by scaling down the image down to a 1×1 pixel and then scaling it up to the placeholder's size—a very rough approximation but a simple, no-fuss way to get a single dominant color. Using ImageKit, the dominant color placeholder can be obtained using a chained transform in ImageKit, and then you can use any number of images on your page.
I've got a couple questions about the use of images in a html document that I couldn't find an answer for.
Why is the standard 12x12 / 24x24 / 48x48 / 96x96 /... and not 8x8 /
16x16 / 32x32 / 64x64 / ... ?
Why is a 130x130px image resized to 50x50px by the browser (by
setting its width/height in the html doc) going to be more blurry
than a 100x100 image resized to 50x50 ? (is it just easier for the
browser to divide the size by 2 ?)
Is there a specific resolution for images that is worth using over another to be
more 4k friendly ? For instance using 384x384px images instead of
96x96 for 4K screen owners ?
1. Why are there icon size standards?
First of all there are no "standard" sizes for icons but it is always a good idea to create icons with a equal ratio = square images. That does not mean you are not allowed to break the rules, but it depens for which medium you are creating the icons. Android using a differend base size then iOS, because they need to support different resolutions. For desktop it is always good to start from a scale of 16px as a base. reference for icon sizes
2. Why get images blurry when resizes?
Image you are the browser and you need to repaint your 120x120px pixel image into an 50x50 canvas. The problem you face right now is that you need to decides on several point which color to choose especially on edges? What the browser does ist to mix up colors for edges where he knows there is not more enoug space to display it crisp. This is causing the "blurry" effect. No think about resizing the 120x120 to the half. Thats a lot more easier because you dont need to mix colors anymore. Or in more technical term:
Well rastered images when scaled in either direction are going to have some anomalies. When you make them bigger, it’s obvious – things get pixelated quickly. When you shrink them down, whatever is rendering it has to guess on what pixel goes where. https://css-tricks.com/forums/topic/scaling-down-images-with-css-makes-them-blurry/#post-188194
3. Are there a specific resolution for images
Thats basicly a very good question and opens the topic of "responsive" Images. As you know the pixen density on 4k Monitors / Smartphones is a lot higher then on regular screen. The fact that images cannot scale the informations by themself makes them pixelated when enlarged and blurry when shrinked. Best case would be to use SVG as often as you can, icons are best usecase for icons. Normally just putting the bigges image online would do the task, but performancewise it would be catastrophical. If you want to master this topic I can give you some good links to dive in:
https://css-tricks.com/optimizing-large-scale-displays/
https://css-tricks.com/responsive-images-css/
Hope thats answers, at least, a bit of your worries :)
I just started to learn svg. One thing perplexes me is I find some site use svg/path to draw a text logo. Like this one:http://www.desiringgod.org/
The logo is pretty simple itself, however, the SVG it is using contain a horrendous <path> tag where there are lots of numbers.
I understand that with SVG we can scale the logo, but I don't see any difference if this logo is based on a .png file. So what really is the benefit?
Secondly, I don' think something like
<path d="M115.326252,8.93098333 L115.326252,16.3798167 L113.923083,16.3798167 L113.923083,14.96265 L113.878305,14.96265 C113.092947,16.0569833 111.560896,16.5939833 109.858654,16.5939833 C106.367752,16.5939833 103.855367,14.0609833 103.855367,8.63131667 C103.855367,3.20098333 106.367752,0.667483333 109.858654,0.667483333 C112.454152,0.667483333 114.454146,1.91331667 115.390858,5.21765 L113.771894,5.53931667 C113.007521,3.07148333 111.7296,2.12731667 109.943088,2.1273166 ....</path>
is written by human being. This must be generated by something, isn't it?
The benefits of using SVG logos over PNG logos are the following:
Scale to any size, perfect for responsive websites.
Look sharp on retina displays.
Don't lose clarity, except for very tiny sizes (same with PNG).
With PNG files you would most likely need to generate multiple resolution versions of the same image and hope that the original image is large enough to support the future display resolutions (8K for example).
And yes, the path is not written by a human being. It's a standard part of an SVG file. You could also do stuff like export SVG files as HTML5 canvas code with an ink2canvas extension in Inkscape.
Advantages of SVG:
Resolution Independence
Super-Accessible DOM Node-Based API
No Unnecessary HTTP Requests
Easy Interactive Scripting
Read more details on: Why Aren’t You Using SVG?
In here, I will describe some differences between using SVG and PNG from an application perspective:
SVG files are lighter than PNG files when deployed to your
application.
PNG is more efficient as far as UI responsiveness since the file is
already within your application, and there is no scaling needed, but it's heavier than your SVG file.
PNG gives a better focus to photographs or detailed images than SVG.
I personally use SVG for icons and logos and PNG for photographs or detailed images.
SVG offers a way to do full resolution graphical elements, no matter
what size screen, what zoom level, or what resolution your user's
device has.
So you write HTML? JavaScript? CSS? Good. Then you already know a lot of what you need to know to get writing SVG.
SVG actually uses an XML-compatible format to define its rendering shapes. Beyond this, you can actually style shapes in CSS, and make them interactive with JavaScript. Multiple JS libraries exist to assist you in this world, like D3.js and Raphael. Here's an example of an SVG element group (the Envato leaf).
The other benefit of SVG is,
When you use images in an html document with the tag, you are defining a file that the user's browser will request. This request will take up bandwidth and require more precious time to download. If your image is instead a set of dom nodes, it cuts that extra HTTP request out, making your website faster and more user friendly.
An SVG XML document of any complexity looks relatively archaic and complicated, and seemingly isn't nearly as easy as just using an image.
Hello I have a client who's logo is RP but the 'R' is facing the other way. I have been asked if it is possible to display 'RP' every time it is mentioned on the website to appear the same as her logo, instead of 'RP'.
My initial thoughts this was not possible but I have used font-awesome icons in a similar way in titles, but never using an image. This is an example of what I mean using photoshop.
Image Link: http://imageshack.com/a/img537/4474/guj5uS.jpg
I am very wary using this method at all as it must be made responsive etc and I honestly think it is more hassle than it's worth but maybe I'm missing an easy css trick...
Your help would be much appreciated.
Many Thanks
If you can contact with a graphic designer then the designer can make a svg image for you with "RP". That svg you can easily turn to a font using online font converter if you dont have professional software.
And insert the costum font you have created on your website just like inserting font awesome and/or all other icon fonts.
Is as easy as this ... nothing else that needs to be done, but always if the "RP" is in svg format (if you have a graphic designer at your disposal, or if your client can give you the RP logo in svg format).
The simplest approach is to use an image and scale it with CSS to suitable size. For best quality in scaled size, you would create the image in SVG format (there are online tools for converting other image formats to SVG, though ideally you should use an SVG file created by the artist who designed the logo). If you need to worry about old browsers (IE 8 and older) that do not support SVG, you can perhaps set content negotiation in the server so that its sends SVG to modern browsers that announce SVG support and PNG to others. But using just SVG:
<p style="font-family: Times New Roman">This is example text that
contains the logo
<img src="http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/upload/RP.svg"
alt=RP style="height: 0.7em">
as an embedded SVG image. The height of the image is set to
0.7em without setting width. This means that browsers will scale
the image <img src="http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/upload/RP.svg"
alt=RP style="height: 0.7em"> so
that is roughly of the same height as uppercase letters
and does not disturb line spacing.</p>
I created a black and white collage consisting of a number of images - but saved the file as 1280*1024 - ideally encompassing that rez of a screen.
The issue is, would it be wiser to have the background scale, and stretch the images in the case of a larger screen or should I have it repeat so as not to lose resolution, and have smaller screens cropped from some of the background?
Thanks for any insight!
I personally don't think scaling an image up is ever an option. It's incredibly noticeable, and it doesn't look good. I would recommend using a background image that at least works on 1920 x 1080, and gracefully fade out the image on the edges or tiles well so if someone sees the page on an even larger screen, there aren't strong lines on the edges of the background.
If you are concerned about the bandwidth involved in large images, check out CSS3 Media Queries. All mobile browsers support this CSS3 module, and it will allow you to target certain resolutions and send them smaller images (both in dimensions and file size).
If your image does tile well, I would recommend going with the smallest pattern, and letting css do the repetition for you. There's no point in pushing more pixels down the pipe than necessary.
It's up to the user really but they obviously can't make that decision. I'd scale it but that's not as easy as tiling it. I've never successfully scaled a background image.
It will also depend on your preference.
Are you okay with having a stretched image as a background, in case the user has a larger screen? If yes, then by all means set the background image to stretch. Or, are you more keen on preserving the integrity of the image? In the latter case, it's much better to have the image tile.
If you're interested in creating a full page background image, try one of these techniques found on CSS Tricks: "Perfect Full Page Background Image".