Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm making a website to practice my HTML and CSS skills. If this was a situation where I'd sell a website to a customer, or a site for personal use on the internet, is there any reason to not have the text as a image? I've made a image in Photoshop and then stuck into a tag, the image is text (can't show you because I don't have 10 rep...) with a designed underline on the header and centred text below the header, 3 columns of the same side by side.
It won't reflow to fit the browser
It won't resize when the font size is increased
When you zoom the page, the text will pixelate
It won't show up in search engines
It won't show up in text browsers
It won't show up in screen readers
Links would have to be implemented with an image map
It will use more bandwidth (so load more slowly)
Yes. Several reasons:
Text within images isn't copyable.
Text within images isn't retrievable by search engines.
Images are larger and take longer to download than text does.
You have no control over the text with CSS if it's within an image.
Users who have images disabled or use text-only browsers would not be able to see any text.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
For the past few days, I have been looking at the various ways websites upload background images to their website via CSS.
When it comes to images which can be duplicated endlessly, such as plain stripes, I have noticed that some websites upload a small 'sample' of the image and then duplicate it with a CSS input such as background-repeat: repeat-x; rather than uploading a larger version which scales according to screen size.
Is this, primarily, a page load speed optimisation exercise, or is there another reason why somebody may wish to do this other than due to the original image being small in the first place?
Is this, primarily, a page load speed optimisation exercise,
Yes.
is there another reason why somebody may wish to do this
A repeating image doesn't have a maximum height or width that using a larger non-repeating image would impose.
This question intrigued me too, I just did a quick Google and from what I found most sites seem to be saying it takes a longer amount of time to download a dimensionally large image than repeat it.
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/making-background-images-load-faster-31826.html
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Hello I am building a webpage that consists of tables, its been successfully built, but the only problem is that when my page is uploaded, the way it looks varies on different screens, so i am trying to have a fixed size using css, so that my page looks unique on all screens, this is what I have tried
style="height: 100%;", for my tables and body tag
But it makes my page not to scroll, but the content and images are looking terribly stretched. can anyone suggest what I can do to have a well looking webpage that would come out uniquely on all webpages
Read on how to use the <div> tag in combination with CSS. Much easier to design your homepage using the <div> tag rather than <table>. Also it will help you when you need to make layout changes for your homepage in the future.
Give elements a fixed width rather than percentage to avoid stretching.
More ideally, look into learning media queries.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Im creating website with paralax effect. Today I heard that images just are not displayed on iPod ?!
I cant check that, because I dont have access to iPod. Can someone tell my why main pictures dont appear in iPod?
Website: http://www.badzlepszy.pl/Nebiolo2/
The images you are using are multiple images of 2000x1200px in size. There is a limit for the maximum amount of pixels allowed in an image. You can visit this website to see which devices should be capable of displaying your images.
The iOS resource limits are described on the Apple website at the heading "Know iOS Resource Limits".
Using these large images on a iPod could cause the problem of not displaying the image.
I tried it on my ipod an can confirm that it looks odd. some of the images are shown though.
You have some errors in your html. Try to fix them first e.g.
<div id="sitelanguage"> outside of body tag
<div class="pasek_suwakow" style="top: 345px;> <-- " missing after 345px
</br></br>
see http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.badzlepszy.pl%2FNebiolo2%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I am developing a Wordpress website where I needed the logo to overlap the banner image below.
Through the help of a colleague as well as Stack Overflow users I now have two solutions that allow for my layout to render as intended.
The image in the banner is rendered as a background image. Because this is a Wordpress site I will have to use inline css for this. Link.
The nav and the banner below are positioned absolutely. Link.
Problems with solution #1:
I realized that if the image is rendered as a background image it will be less SEO friendly and of course less user-friendly for screen readers, etc. as it won't have alt or title tags.
Problems with solution #2:
I find that absolute positioning just doesn't feel as reliable cross-browser (this could be all in my mind). This method also required some extra markup and css classes which I didn't like having to do.
Which way do you think is better? For what reasons?
I don't think there is a definitive answer to your question.
But bear in mind that if you want to print your page, the background image will not be rendered, but the absolute image will.
in my opinion: you should ask yourself if this image is part of the content in your web site, or just a nice visual style.
if its part of the content: use absolute positioning techniques, otherwise: use background.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
It almost seems like a no-brainer, but I wanna get a second opinion. I am designing a project for a client where it will output PDF's that can be printed. As a customer of theirs, you can customize the cover page with an uploaded image. When printing the cover page, is it better to have them try and upload as big an image as possible?
Seems like the answer would be yes, but I have never (web) designed for print before. I've either done one or the other.
Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.
When you say "big", it's unclear what you mean. Do you mean file-size? Image dimensions? I'll speak to both.
The actual printing of the page doesn't have anything to do with file or image-size from a bandwidth load perspective.
The bigger the file-size, the longer the upload time, the greater the bandwidth use, and the larger the .pdf file size.
The smaller the dimensions of the uploaded image and the lesser of the resolution means that if the image gets resized to fit a certain area, then the image will appear pixelated both on the web and in print. Conversely, you can resize down an image and not lose quality.
Hope my perspective is helpful :-)
I think you should resize the image while uploading in order to it fits the PDF page cover, except if the image is smaller than the page.
You don't need to get huge images for medium sized pages.