i have seen people using these kind of images then positioning them so that they are single buttons, you know what i mean
Why this is done so ?
What are the benefits ?
It spares the browser from issuing lots of little HTTP requests, which slow down page-loads. It also tends to slightly reduce the resource consumption on the browser — which can matter a lot on constrained devices — and is friendlier to constrained caches, because one large image is usually quite a bit smaller than the sum of individual images.
It's called 'css sprites' and it's done because of optimalizations.
Like this, the browser only need to load a single (larger) image instead of a lot of small images. This improves the speed of the website.
The single image is usually smaller in size compared to the small images separated.
Related
Let say that I have an image with the size 200x200px. I also have two separate webpages. The first page has an image tag with the attributes width="100" height="100" so the image is downsampled by half. The second page has an image tag with the attributes width="400" height="400" so the image is oversampled to the double the original size.
Which one of the cases is computationally faster to execute? Downsampling or oversampling. Other names for the operation would be subsampling and interpolation or just decreasing image size and increasing it. My guts tell me that there is less to compute when decreasing the image size but I'm not sure.
It is true that with just one small image the difference is meaningless. And of course the best solution would be to avoid scaling of images in the first place. Nonetheless if the target application uses high number of constantly changing images in different scales and is used from a mobile device then knowing the difference might become valuable.
Thanks in advance.
Oversampling is supposed to be more expensive... it FOR SURE requires some kind of interpolation. Let's suppose the simplest one: the linear interpolation! It's already more expensive than calculating 'a single mod operator' (the only thing you need in order to do a downsampling). I don't think someone would do much different...
Trying to be more accurate about the browsers, let's consider that any modern browser uses some tricks like GPU and/or OpenMP (Multi-Processing) to render the images. But GPU requires upload data from CPU and it has a price. This data transfer is a narrow path. So, for small images, it's gonna be almost the same thing... no big difference!
Mobile devices don't have as many cores as a Desktop computer... so OpenMP is not gonna be much helpful for small images too.
What are the benefits to using an images real height and width when rendering HTML? That is if I have an image that 100x100 pixels but I want to display something that is 95x95 pixels, should I resize the image on the server or can I let the browser handle this? I'm really looking for a general rule along with the reason. Thanks.
<img src="image.jpg" style="width: 95px; height: 95px;" alt="an image" />
Browsers handle resampling/interpolation of bitmap images differently when they're the ones resizing the images, which may or may not be controllable with CSS. This is elaborated on in detail in this post on Flickr's dev blog. If you resize the image in an image editor or by using server technology, you'll get consistent results across browsers.
In your case, a difference of under 5 pixels around will probably not be too much (unless you're concerned about pixel perfection!), but if you're trying to squeeze dimensionally or binarily large images into small rectangles, it's best to resize them beforehand. The reduced image dimensions and file size will help with bandwidth savings.
If you're always going to use the same height, it would make sense to resize it once beforehand - in as nice a way as possible - rather than getting everyone's browser to do it. After all, you can verify the results, make any tweaks you need, use the best software you can find and not worry about how long it takes to perform the resize etc.
On the other hand, I wouldn't expect the results to be very different visually, and unless you're talking about really slow computers (or a lot of images) it's probably not going to take up that much client CPU time. You may want to check the render time on slow mobile phones though, particularly if you're targeting mobile users.
if the sizes are significantly different then you should have a large versin and a small version:
like in your example, 100px and 95px shouldnt be a big deal but lets say you have large images and you want to display thumbnails it will be better to create multiple versions of the images.
The advantage will be:
1 - faster download time when you just want to show thumbnails.
2 - More consistency on different browsers
3 - I am sure people can add at least another 100 advantages in here
Just re-size the image. Otherwise the full 100X100 image will be loaded (which weighs more than 95x95 - and difference in size gets bigger the more you're trying to scale it with html). So it'll take an unnecessary long time to load an image that will not be displayed in its full size. If you scale them down a lot using html and you have a lot of images on the page - that's a lot of wasted traffic and reduced speed.
The whole width/height thing was used when connection was very slow and everyone used phone lines with ancient modems - that way you could see the proper layout of the page before all images were loaded (and it took a while to see all images after seeing the page with all the text).
You should resize the images on the server when it makes sense. I doubt if resizing a 100x100px image to 95x95px will save you more than a couple of KBs so you're probably OK in this case.
If the difference (dimension-wise) is significant e.g. on master page you show a 100x100px thumbnails and on the detail page you have 640x480px image then you better create two versions of the image. This will make your thumbnails page load faster and you'll only serve the minimum amount of data.
On the other hand if the difference (dimension-wise) is not significant then serving two images will actually double the amount of data transferred.
Here is what Google's PageSpeed have to say about it: Serve scaled images
Most websites tend to have either a solid color as background, or a small image that is repeated. Why aren't more websites using a large image (such as a photo) as background? I can think of the following reasons:
1) Problems with different screen resolutions. Too small and gaps start to appear on the left and/or right side for higher resolutions, too big and lower resolutions only show part of the image.
2) Bandwidth. Although this is unlikely to be a problem for most websites.
Are there any other reasons why such backgrounds are not being used more often?
You've pretty much identified the two main reasons, but the most important one is bandwidth. Depending on the type of image, you'd be best to consider all those users in your target audience whose technical limitations mean that sitting and waiting on a dial-up connection (they're still out there, you know) will alienate them.
In addition to the time and resource cost of sending large images down the pipe to your users, the usability issues of forcing the user to wait for the image to load and the impact of readability of content mean that background images should best be limited to tileable, scalable or small UI enhancements rather than full UI features.
I think that images as background have a tendency of making the text difficult to read.. :)
Your assumption about bandwidth not being a problem is unfounded. This is an illustration of global broadband availability (source):
And that's not including cell phones, which are probably the fastest growing group of devices used to connect to the Internet. Finally, the fact that you took the ergonomic aspects out of the discussion (narrowing it to technical aspects) makes it more of an "academic" discussion as you've excluded the main reasons not to use large background images (i.e. readability).
Background is not part of the content of your website, it's here to make it more clear.
Pictures are part of the content, and the complexity make the text harder to read.
I think that the main problem is about resolution, but with CSS3 we will forget thanks to the new property Background-size
So I was looking at the facebook HTML with firebug, and I chanced upon this image
and came to the conclusion that facebook uses this large image (with tricky image positioning code) rather than many small ones for its graphical elements. Is this more efficient than storing many small images?
Can anybody give any clues as to why facebook would do this.
These are called CSS sprites, and yes, they're more efficient - the user only has to download one file, which reduces the number of HTTP requests to load the page. See this page for more info.
The problem with the pro-performance viewpoint is that it always seems to present the "Why" (performance), often without the "How", and never "Why Not".
CSS Sprites do have a positive impact on performance, for reasons that other posters here have gone into in detail. However, they do have a downside: maintainability; removing, changing, and particularly resizing images becomes more difficult - mostly because of the alterations that need to be made to the background-position-riddled stylesheet along with every change to the size of a sprite, or to the shape of the map.
I think it's a minority view, but I firmly believe that maintainability concerns should outweigh performance concerns in the vast majority of cases. If the performance is necessary, then go ahead, but be aware of the cost.
That said, the performance impact is massive - particularly when you're using rollovers and want to avoid that effect you get when you mouseover an image then the browser goes away to request the rollover. It's appropriate to refactor your images into a sprite map once your requirements have settled down - particularly if your site is going to be under heavy traffic (and certainly the big examples people have been pulling out - facebook, amazon, yahoo - all fit that profile).
There are a few cases where you can use them with basically no cost. Any time you're slicing an image, using a single image and background-position tags is probably cheaper. Any time you've got a standard set of icons - especially if they're of uniform size and unlikely to change. Plus, of course, any time when the performance really matters, and you've got the budget to cover the maintenance.
If at all possible, use a tool and document your use of it so that whoever has to maintain your sprites knows about it. http://csssprites.org/ is the only tool I've looked into in any detail, but http://spriteme.org/ looks seriously awesome.
The technique is dubbed "css sprites".
See:
What are the advantages of using CSS
Sprites in web applications?
Performance of css sprites
How do CSS sprites speed up a web
site?
Since other users have answered this already, here's how to do it, and another way is here.
Opening connections is more costly than simply continuing a transfer. Similarly, the browser only needs to cache one file instead of hundreds.
yet another resource: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/04/27/the-mystery-of-css-sprites-techniques-tools-and-tutorials/
One of the major benefits of CSS sprites is that it add virtually 0 server overhead and is all calculated client side. A huge gain for no server side performance hit.
Simple answer, you only have to 'fetch' one image file and it is 'cut' for different views, if you used multiple images that would be multiple files you would need to download, which simply would equate into additional time to download everything.
Cutting up the large image into 'sprites' makes one HTTP request and provides a no flicker approach as well to 'onmouseover' elements (if you reuse the same large image for a mouse over effect).
Css Sprites tecnique is a method for reducing the number of image requests using background position.
Best Practices for Speeding Up Your Web Site
CSS Sprites: Image Slicing’s Kiss of Death
Google also does it - I've written a blog post on it here: http://www.stevefenton.co.uk/Content/Blog/Date/200905/Blog/Google-Uses-Image-Sprites/
But the essence of it is that you make a single http request for one big image, rather than 20 small http requests.
If you watch a http request, they spend more time waiting to start downloading than actually downloading, so it's much faster to do it in one hit - chunky, not chatty!
I don't have much experience with the sprite approach to images (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/sprites). Anyone care to share some pros/cons of sprites vs. old-school slices?
The main advantage of sprites is that the browser has to request less pictures from the webserver. That reduces the number of HTTP requests and makes it possible to compress the parts of the design more effectively. These two points also represent the disadvantages of sliced images.
Here you can see some good examples how sprites improve the loading speed of web pages:
http://css-tricks.com/css-sprites/
Pros:
It's far easier on the server to serve a single large image than many small ones.
It's (slightly) faster for a web browser to load such an image.
Browsers only load images as they needs them - if you are using multiple images in a rollover, the browser would "pause" the first time you roll over the element. This can be solved using sprites, because there is only one image to load.
Cons:
It's kind of a pain to code (more so than using multiple images at least)
One often overlooked downside of using CSS sprites is memory footprint:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130605000516/http://blog.vlad1.com/2009/06/22/to-sprite-or-not-to-sprite/
Unless the sprite image is carefully constructed, you end up with
incredible amounts of wasted space. My favourite example is from WHIT
TV’s web site, where this image is used as a sprite. Note that
this is a 1299×15,000 PNG. It compresses quite well — the actual
download size is around 26K — but browsers don’t render compressed
image data. When this image is downloaded and decompressed, it will
use almost 75MB in memory (1299 * 15000 * 4).
When sprites get loaded into the browser, they are stored uncompressed. A 26 KB file can uncompress to take up a whopping 75 MB of RAM. You should be mindful of using sprites with very large dimensions.
There's also the issue of what happens in browsers with poor CSS support (legacy browsers). The sprites may end up totally broken.
Sprites
Pros:
Less HTTP connections to the server
Faster loading on broadband
Cons:
No encapsulation: If you want to change one image, you have to change the sprite
It is difficult to setup individual images in CSS without a tool
Don't degrade: If the browser don't support CSS, you are in trouble
CSS Sprites:
Pros:
Graceful degrade in unsupported browsers (text can be shown when background images for links are not allowed)
Fewer HTTP requests
Each image has a separate overhead like color table so image slicing will be having more overhead than CSS sprites
Cons:
Poses a problem if images are turned off in the browsers (rare case though)
Image slicing:
Pros:
User perceives a faster load since loaded piece by piece.
Load on demand like when the user places his mouse on the image
Cons:
The webpages might have a large size on the client side even thought it might not be the case on the server side.
The main drawback of sprites is it makes it hard to read/maintain/modify your CSS. It can be difficult to remember the exact pixel offsets within the sprite.
pros using sprites :
since it is using 1 images for all, it require less load on http server.
cons:
- hard to code. you must know the coordinate each images inside sprites so you can display it correctly. once you change the size of the image, you need to adjust all ...
- big images could creates long waited page to display. while using images, user with slow internet connection can see one by one.
best practices.
use it for example roll over images.
Look into using a CSS sprite generator (we use SmartSprites). That way you can do slices locally, and have your build process generate a spritemap. It's the best of both worlds.
Also is SmartSprites isn't for you, there's definitely others, however I like it because it reduces the amount of work up front AND during changes.
Cons
- slower on older browsers/ maybe not working on them with hover effect (opera6)
- if not used correctly can get very/too huge (group them adequately!)
- tedious work to set them up
Pros
- less bytes transfered, because one big image is smaller then all individual images combined (one header/ color table)
- less http requests
I prefer going the middle ground of grouping similar images (normal, hover, selected page, the parent page of selected page) than having all the images in one file. To make these, you image slice like normal in Photoshop or Illustrator, open the files up and combine them with a shortcut key. I wrote the Photoshop script that combines images into CSS sprites. You will have multiple HTTP connections, but won't have the load delay on hover.