I have already read
What is the difference between SVG and HTML5 Canvas?
&&
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_element#Canvas_versus_Scalable_Vector_Graphics_.28SVG.29
So i am aware of the basic differences, but i was wondering if anyone had encountered any practical difference between the two within the context of ggvis and shiny apart from SVG inability to deal with NA's in the data
The short answer:
SVG would be easier for you, since selection and moving it around is already built in. SVG objects are DOM objects, so they have "click" handlers, etc.
DIVs are okay but clunky and have awful performance loading at large numbers.
Canvas has the best performance hands-down, but you have to implement all concepts of managed state (object selection, etc) yourself, or use a library.
The long answer:
HTML5 Canvas is simply a drawing surface for a bit-map. You set up to draw (Say with a color and line thickness), draw that thing, and then the Canvas has no knowledge of that thing: It doesn't know where it is or what it is that you've just drawn, it's just pixels. If you want to draw rectangles and have them move around or be selectable then you have to code all of that from scratch, including the code to remember that you drew them.
SVG on the other hand must maintain references to each object that it renders. Every SVG/VML element you create is a real element in the DOM. By default this allows you to keep much better track of the elements you create and makes dealing with things like mouse events easier by default, but it slows down significantly when there are a large number of objects
Those SVG DOM references mean that some of the footwork of dealing with the things you draw is done for you. And SVG is faster when rendering really large objects, but slower when rendering many objects.
A game would probably be faster in Canvas. A huge map program would probably be faster in SVG. If you do want to use Canvas, I have some tutorials on getting movable objects up and running here.
Canvas would be better for faster things and heavy bitmap manipulation (like animation), but will take more code if you want lots of interactivity.
I've run a bunch of numbers on HTML DIV-made drawing versus Canvas-made drawing. I could make a huge post about the benefits of each, but I will give some of the relevant results of my tests to consider for your specific application:
I made Canvas and HTML DIV test pages, both had movable "nodes." Canvas nodes were objects I created and kept track of in Javascript. HTML nodes were movable Divs.
I added 100,000 nodes to each of my two tests. They performed quite differently:
The HTML test tab took forever to load (timed at slightly under 5 minutes, chrome asked to kill the page the first time). Chrome's task manager says that tab is taking up 168MB. It takes up 12-13% CPU time when I am looking at it, 0% when I am not looking.
The Canvas tab loaded in one second and takes up 30MB. It also takes up 13% of CPU time all of the time, regardless of whether or not one is looking at it. (2013 edit: They've mostly fixed that)
Dragging on the HTML page is smoother, which is expected by the design, since the current setup is to redraw EVERYTHING every 30 milliseconds in the Canvas test. There are plenty of optimizations to be had for Canvas for this. (canvas invalidation being the easiest, also clipping regions, selective redrawing, etc.. just depends on how much you feel like implementing)
There is no doubt you could get Canvas to be faster at object manipulation as the divs in that simple test, and of course far faster in the load time. Drawing/loading is faster in Canvas and has far more room for optimizations, too (ie, excluding things that are off-screen is very easy).
Conclusion:
SVG is probably better for applications and apps with few items (less than 1000? Depends really)
Canvas is better for thousands of objects and careful manipulation, but a lot more code (or a library) is needed to get it off the ground.
HTML Divs are clunky and do not scale, making a circle is only possible with rounded corners, making complex shapes is possible but involves hundreds of tiny tiny pixel-wide divs. Madness ensues.
I have past content from the following link.
Please see this link for more details
HTML5 Canvas vs. SVG vs. div
Related
I am writing a web app which renders a graph that holds ~700 nodes and their respective edges. Each node is displayed as a circle and inside of it is contained a block of text, a background image, as well as other content. The graph is interactive and the user can both scale and pan the graph. Thus smoothness and high performance is necessary.
Suppose the graph is rendered with SVG. Considering that each node contains rich HTML-like content, it is easier to structure and style the node with HTML/CSS in a div and include it in the graph as a foreignObject. However, with this method there is a noticible performance drop when using the app with mobile devices. Over a modern browser, would you expect a significant performance increase if nodes were structured purely in SVG?
In this particular case, using HTML for each node involves the use of a div with text, and CSS properties like width, height, border, background-image, border-radius, and flex.
Using pure SVG would be more complicated to implement, but would include elements like rect and pattern as well as the corresponding SVG styling attributes.
It really depends on the complexity of the shapes, the size of the graph and how much time you want to put into it. A graph with 700 nodes and thousands of edges sure is a heavy thing. I would advise you to make a small version of the graph (maybe 10-15 nodes) and compare the performance between HTML+SVG and SVG only.
The thing is, using only SVG it is very heavy and not very performatic at all. I guess it'll be very heavy both ways. Have you considered using other tools?
I used this website a while ago to make a flowchart for a website and it worked really well.
Hope it helps.
I'm developing an application which involves a slides translating into view as the primary navigation mechanism. The first slide to come in involves several super-imposed PNGs at roughly 2000px squared with transparencies, and there's a notable framerate stutter as the images come into view.
Using Chrome Dev Tools' Timeline feature I've established that while most of the individual Paint tasks take under 5 milliseconds each, the significant outliers are those Paint events whose subtasks include decoding the PNGs, which take between 50 and 100 milliseconds one after the other, seemingly at the moment the images come into view.
Ideally I would like to decode the bitmaps ahead of time, but I can't think of a way of forcing this behaviour without actually rendering them in view. Any ideas?
If the bottleneck is decoding, then pre-render your images to a canvas, and then either draw those pre-rendered canvases to your view canvas or translate them in using CSS.
I have recently begun using image sprites and they are definately great for reducing http requests. Is there a point where it becomes bad practice?
Im thinking particularly where a lot of extra markup has to be added to support them. For example, using them for list bullet points, I have to add two or three extra spans to get everything alligned etc.
Theres also the annoying point that you cant use repeating images, so therfore there is always the toss up between one large image as part of sprite or a tiny 1 pixel image used for repeating downloaded on its own.
Im really looking for an opinion on the two situations outlined here + any other general considerations/guidelines for using sprites.
They can often cause performance issues on mobile devices. I'm not 100% certain why (never really dived into the problem), but I'm assuming it's because the mobile webkit is loading a new copy of a relatively large image into memory for every instance of it on the page. Since mobile devices often have very small amounts of RAM, it can quickly cause the page to slow down.
I've run into this issue before when having about 300 "icon" sprites on a page at one time, each pulling from a sprite image that contained about 50 different icons. Going back to "normal" methods of one icon per image (or 2-3 for hover states) solved performance issues on this particular page.
Also, many browsers (mobile and otherwise) will often not 100% respect the clipping of sprites when you slightly resize the page content (e.g. using "Zoom In/Out" on the browser itself). You'll often see little pieces of the sprite next to the one you want to use.
As for your bullet example, you shouldn't ever need more than one extra div/span. You would set a margin-left on the li and position your "bullet div" in the empty space it creates.
That being said, I use sprites all the time because they're convenient, just be aware of a few issues with them. Generally, I have sprites.png, sprites_h.png and sprites_v.png for horizontally and vertically repeating pieces.
Write two simple test pages, use sprites on one, and not on the other. Use a tool like http://www.webpagetest.org/ to measure the performance in a few different browsers. Once you have data, you can make decisions.
I would divide sprites by related elements, like navigation and content-related sprites, so you can benefit from sprites and keep a logical order in your code. Don't forget that readable and understandable code should be a priority (particularly with CSS, it can get very messy) unless you're working on a Google-scale project.
How do you approach the use of image sprites in css?
Should I take all the images in my website and combine them to one image sprite? Is it really that beneficial?
How hard is it to maintain those images and change them later on?
Should I take all the images in my website and combine them to one image sprite?
Of course not. You're taking it too literal.
I find sprites are best used for groups of similar images. Examples include:
All states of a graphical button
States of icons
All permutations of a background (unless it needs to tile two ways)
Is it really that beneficial?
If you have a lot of them on a busy site, very. It saves a request for each image, saving the user time and your server a whole bunch of concurrent connections.
How hard is it to maintain those images and change them later on?
If you've used them logically, pretty simple. If you need to add another navigation item, you open up your nav sprite and expand it. For things like navigation it can actually be easier to maintain because you have like comparisons right next to you in the same document.
Edit, having seen one of the more extreme examples, I'll add that I would never go that far because:
It's 60k to download. Not huge but on slow connections, that's 60k that has to be downloaded before anything shows. If all your visual assets are tied up, it can make the load time seem longer.
Your CSS becomes a nonsensical mish-mash of background-position commands. If you do want to make changes you have to go back to the sprite and measure everything. Again and again and again.
God have mercy on your soul if you need to enlarge something in the top-left of the sprite. You'd probably just add a new sprite below the current ones.
And that might lead to bloat. Indeed, just loading all these images might be loading a whole lot of material that some users will never actually see. Loading unused data is probably worse than a connection overhead (considering how easily static content can be served by multiple cheap servers or a CDN)
The other examples are a lot more simple and worthwhile (IMO).
Sprites are a great way of cutting down load-time on graphics (sometimes), and always a way of cutting down requests to the server. Generally speaking, they may take some serious planning as you don't simply want to drop a bunch of images onto a canvas and export as a jpeg. I would suggest you study some sprites currently in use by larger companies like Amazon. Get an idea for how they layout their elements, and what types of images they even consider for use in sprites.
You'll also want to evaluate your site and be sure whether you can successfully implement them or not. If you weren't planning on using them to begin with, it may require a lot of back-tracking and updating to prepare for them.
Amazon Sprite
Ebay Sprite
Current.com Sprite (Whoa)
Google
Sprites work well when you’ve got an element with at least one fixed dimension (width or height), and you want it to have a different background image in different circumstances.
When I’ve tried it, I’ve found that sprite image files tend to be smaller than the total size of the individual images files they’re made from, so you can get bandwidth savings as well as the other two benefits:
fewer HTTP requests
no delay waiting for another image to download when an image state changes on hover
That does depend on the contents of the images though.
Personally, I wouldn’t put unrelated images together in one sprite image, as I think it makes maintenance too non-obvious. Also, as mentioned in To Sprite Or Not To Sprite, really big sprite images can use quite a bit of browser memory. (Whether this is actually a bad thing depends on the context.)
The idea is to avoid unnecessary HTTP requests. This is especially an issue if you have a lot of small icons (say, for a WYSIWYG editor like the one used on this site). If you have twenty 16x16 pixel icons, that won't amount to much bandwidth, but it will still mean twenty extra requests each time the page is loaded.
Other candidates for sprites are button states and anything that's purely decorative but part of the layout.
If you use roll-over background image changes, you'll also find that you'll either have to preload the roll-over state image (either with JS or with silly hardcoding) or you'll encounter some latency as the browser requests the previously unused image. Sprites can alleviate that.
Things you probably shouldn't be making sprites of are pictures that are NOT just graphical elements (e.g. graphs, illustrations, avatars, ads) or that will change a lot (e.g. avatars or ads).
It's not impossible to change sprites, but depending on how much thought you put into the arrangement of the sprite sheet, it may be very hard to do. There's nothing forcing you to make the sprite sheet ultra-condensed, but it's obviously better for the file size if there's not much unnecessary whitespace in it (see Google).
Note that the extra requests may not be a problem for you if you have a relatively low traffic site (which almost everybody has, unless you're Google or Amazon). Sprites may still improve performance for mobile devices, though, as it means less chances for errors and thus lower latency.
I was told that there is an increase in performance when using Canvas versus HBox or VBox when laying out out the position of children. As a result, a number of our components have been converted over to using Canvas. However, now there is code being added to calculate the x and y positioning of some of the child elements based off of the width and height of other children. Is it worth using a Canvas to increase performance if code needs to be added to determine the coordinates/positions of the children? Is there a better method or technique available that should be practiced other than just minimizing the number of ui components added and specifying positioning absolutely?
There are a number of middle-of-the-road techniques, one of which is to use rendering-type components, such as TileGrid or ItemRenderers, if your layout fits a certain formula. If you're using forms, try using the Form layout component instead of using a custom layout.
If you do need to use the layout engine in Flex, the way to optimize your usage is to remember that certain techniques are used by the framework in increasing performance load, loosely following the below list, the last being the most performance intensive:
absolute positioning (<Canvas>)
relative positioning (<VBox>)
constraint-based positioning (right=0)
advanced constraint-based positioning (<constraintColumns>)
Using relative positioning is usually not that performance intensive. If you are finding that it is, it could be that you're using too many nested containers. Look at your layout architecture and try to find out ways in which your objects may be "over-laid out", and simplify them. A good tool for this is FlexSpy, which lets you introspect object layout at runtime.
Another common performance bottleneck is that your application is attempting to do some number-crunching at the exact same time that your GUI is attempting to respond to user interaction. Although no green threading frameworks exist at the moment which enable you to run UI and logic in separate 'threads', you can use a good architectural framework such as Cairngorm or Mate (there are many) which uses Commands instead of straight up methods, so that functionality execution which may take up processing cycles waits until the UI has finished responding to the user.
A couple things you want to keep in mind while optimizing a Flex UI:
Avoiding excessive nesting of containers. Consider using a Canvas with absolute or constraint-based positioning over nesting lots of HBox / VBox elements. However this doesn't mean you should NEVER use VBox/HBox. You can mix and match, such as using a Canvas as the main container and positioning child Boxes inside them as needed, just try to avoid too much nesting.
Using the UIComponent model properly in custom components. In particular, using invalidateProperties(), invalidateSize() and invalidateDisplayList() so that their companion functions (commitProperties(), measure() and updateDisplayList()) are invoked at an optimal time for the Flash Player. Deepa gives a great talk about this here:
http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f15384v1002
She explains how making heavy use of the invalidation scheme allows the Flash Player to execute your code at an ideal time, i.e. not in the middle of a screen update. These principles are used by all Flex components and can/should be leveraged regardless of the framework being used.
To make sure I understand:
You heard that Canvas can position children faster than [VH]Box
Canvas only does absolute positioning
Some (many?) of your components have an absolute position, so you switched to using Canvas
But some of your components have a relative position, so you need to write code to position them
Is that correct?
Anyway, assuming I'm correct (which may not be the case), the first thing you want to do is pick the functioning interface which requires the fewest lines of code, then decide if it's "good enough". You want the one with the fewest lines of code because studies have shown that there is a correlation between lines of code and number of bugs (and you don't want bugs). You want to see if it's "good enough" because, if it IS "good enough", you don't need to do anything (if you do try and make it faster, you're committing Premature Optimization).
But that's probably not what you wanted to hear :)
So I'll also suggest that, if you want to stick with Canvas-based layout, you try sticking all the relatively positioned content inside [VH]Boxes, which are then absolutely positioned inside the Canvas. There's a good chance the code Adobe has written is faster than code, so you should try to take advantage of it.
But the only way to know for sure is to try it and profile it.