I'm developing a responsive website using Twitter Bootstrap and I want to make some background images responsive that are within a sprite.
Now, I found this post that appears to give a good method, but my issue is, what happens if the image is updated? Normally you could just use cache busting techniques such as appending something like ?v=2 to the end of the filename, but with this method I'm not sure if that is possible? ...or is caching not an issue with this method?
If caching is still an issue are there any other methods available? ...or something a bit more user-friendly than that?
Caching shouldn't be an issue provided you're using something other than a transparent gif. Namely, because the size of the change to the file should be enough to tip the browser off that the file isn't the same when the page is visited. Which handles client-side caching.
Server-side caching won't be an issue with this, as the server will know that the modification date is greater than the last file that was loaded, and should deliver the newer version.
Related
I have an ASHX handler that I am using to display images that are stored in a database. I display the images as thumbnails and then full size if the user mouses over them.
How can I combine the images at runtime to produce CSS sprites for use in this situation?
If it can be done does anyone have suggestions on where to start?
UPATE
It seems like most people are saying this is not a good situation to use sprites in. I'm new to the sprite concept so please bear with me.
If I am going to be loading 30 thumbnails on a page from my database everytime why would it not make sense to pass them from the server to the client as one large image instead of passing 30 individual images? Wouldn't this be faster? Isn't this the purpose of CSS Sprites?
As far as the browser is concerned, an HTTP resource is an HTTP resource and it is irrelevant if the server produced it by reading a file from a hard disk, taking data out of a database, or spewing the content of a random number generator through an algorithm that would output valid PNG data.
You just need to generate your images from the data as normal.
That said, since the images are content, CSS would be an inappropriate tool to include them in the document. You should use an <img> element.
You have a couple options.
Your handler can combine the images on the fly that it gets from the database and send the whole thing down to the browser.
OR (and I like this one better)
You create the merged image at the time the images are uploaded to your site.
The second is better as the conversion only has to happen once and therefore means that you only have to spend those resources once. It does mean you are essentially storing 2 copies of the image, but that's fine.
UPDATE
I believe I misinterpreted what you were trying to do. I thought you were trying to combine the thumbnail with the full blown image. Instead, you appear to be really asking how to combine all of the thumbnail images.
In that case, it's even more of a bad idea. As David Dorward stated CSS is used to control layout. You're talking about content. However, the semantic issue aside, in the event you want to make tweaks to the layout your going to have to modify your code which creates the sprites to begin with. What if you decide to do 35 images? Or, change that to do 18?
By going the sprite route your pretty well screwed by being forced to modify code for any layout change which is NOT good style.
To cover that last question: wouldn't it be faster? Probably not. Under this scenario you would have to create the sprite on the fly, which introduces server overhead, which slows everything down. At most it might be a wash in the delivery time. At worst, you incur a large server and development performance negative impact.
Check out http://www.RequestReduce.com. It not only creates the sprite file automatically, but it does it on the fly through an HttpModule along with merging and minifying all CSS. It lso optimizes the sprite image using quantization and lossless compression and it handles the serving of the generated files using ETags and Expires headers to ensure optimal browser caching. The setup is trivial involving just a simple web.config change. See my blog post about its adoption by the Microsoft Visual Studio and MSDN Samples gallery.
I completely agree with David. Just a quick note regarding David's last point: That's only if the images are content. However, if they were part of the layout, then CSS would be appropriate.
That said, with this use case, sprites aren't a good choice. One of the purposes of thumbnails is to cut down loading time, which a sprite would make worse for a gallery. A better pattern might be using a lightbox or something similar with two images rather than one, with the larger being requested on demand.
Sprites are not a good solution here.
To answer your update, sprites are ideal for many small images, where the overhead of a new HTTP request outweighs the few bytes being sent for a small png or gif (e.g. 16x16 icons, etc). For larger images the time of the HTTP request becomes less important overall as the download time increases.
Packing images into a sprite also means that they will execute one longer request and other requests will have to queue behind it. If the important thing is to get the thumbnails showing quickly, then make sure those get loaded first before starting to load any larger views of the same images.
Any larger files that don't display at the initial page load should be late-loaded (window.onload) or lazy-loaded (as needed by click or hover actions).
Is there any problem with using jquery layout plugin (there are several) to layout a page as opposed to using CSS and fixing browser compatibility issues myself?
Another problem is that the page has to fully load and download the javascript, then get rendered. This will slow down the page significantly.
The most obvious problem is that any visitor to the page using a browser with JavaScript turned off will not get the layout. If you're willing to turn away from those people, that may not be a blocking factor for you.
There can also be performance issues, delays on resizing the browser window, that sort of thing.
I'm not saying don't do it; if it's appropriate for your target audience. But look to see if you can avoid it or at least gracefully degrade if JavaScript isn't enabled. (Turn off JavaScript and come here to SO, for instance; still very usable in a read-only way.)
If doing this, continue to be sure to mark up your content in the main page (rather than only adding it dynamically) and use the most semantic markup you can, to improve your search-ability.
When your layout doesn't behave for whatever reason (and that will happen), will you be able to understand the code behind the JQuery plugin to fix it?
Invest in yourself and learn CSS properly, it's not hard, it doesn't take long and it will equip you for the future, don't just rely on plugins. Now I'm not saying never use a plug-in, but this to me seems inappropriate use
Some users are reporting that my site is too slow
And i think background images in css might be a possible
culprit
I have a site that uses a custom build system
to concatenate all css, compress them ( yui compressor ) , make css sprites
automatically ( smartsprites ) and I end up with a 9kb CSS for the
whole page, this includes all css for background-images at last is d they
were around 60 ( several go to the same sprite not sure how many )
I was wondering if the default behavior of browsers
is to download the images as needed ( when they match a selector )
or download them all.
Right now firebug in firefox seems to suggest that they are all been downloaded.
What techniques would you suggest i'd use to avoid the problem, and or
mitigate it.
edit:
I misread firebug, the images that are being downloaded belong to a lightview
that is hidden but the background-images are matched to the dom.
No, in fact it's better to put them in the CSS than in the markup.
The image calls will not block the page and as the images are loaded they will be rendered on the page so overall it is a good idea to load them via CSS. Not to mention that this design is also more flexible.
(It goes without saying that each of those images will take up bandwidth and extra HTTP requests)
the default browser behavior is to download two items at a time(i.e. 2 http requests), if you think you have lots of images create a sub domain for your images like images.yoursite.com and you will start seeing the browsers making parallel request, and you can see some improvement in performance
(Side topic. Not really answering your question. But might be interesting or even relevant.)
I think another possible culprit is that "some users" will always feel that your site is "too slow". (Maybe it's more of a Mental Breakdown than Stack Overflow thing? What do these users consider being a fast site? Can they give examples? How fast is their connection and computer? Where are they, and where is your server located? What exactly is slow? The signup process? Watching videos in HD? Scrolling the window? Loading Firefox? After all, it's humans.. n'est pas?)
Maybe take a closer look at the image(s) you're sending, particularly if there are a lot of them being compiled into a single "sprite" image.
What could be happening is that the image you're pointing to is very large. Sure, it should only be loaded once (the benefit of the sprite method), but if it's several hundred KB it could certainly cause some performance problems.
There's a nice firefox plugin called Yslow that gives you some useful information about performance optimization. It shows you performance issues it detected, and gives you links to articles suggesting an improvement.
http://developer.yahoo.com/yslow/
Some info on best practices
http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html
A couple of years ago, we had a graphic designer revamp our website. His results looked great, but he unfortunately introduced a new unsupported font by the web browser.
At first I was like, "What!?!"... since most of our content is dynamic and there was no real way to pre-make all of the images. There was also the issue of multiple languages (since we knew Spanish was on the horizon).
Anyway, I decided to create some classes to auto-generate images via GDI+ and programatically cache them as needed. This solved most of our initial problems. However, now that our load has increased dramatically, there has been a drain on our UI server.
Now to the question... I am looking to replace most of the dynamic GDI+ images with a standard web browser font. I am thinking of keeping some of the rendered GDI+ images and putting them in a resx file, but plan to replace most of them with Tahoma or Arial fonts via asp:Labels.
Which have you found to be a better localized image solution?
Embedding images into the resx
Only adding the image url into the resx
Some other solution
My main concern is to limit the processing on the UI server. If that is the case, would adding the image url to the resx be a better solution compared to actually embedding the image into the resx?
You should only need to generate each image once, and then save it on the hard disk. The load on your site shouldn't increase the amount of processing you have to do. That being said, it almost sounds like you are using images for things you shouldn't be. If there are so many different images that you can't keep up with generating them, it's time to abandon your fancy images for things that shouldn't be images, and go back to straight text. If the user doesn't have the specified font installed, it should just fall back to a similar looking font. CSS has good support for this.
see my response here
This can be done manually or using some sort of automated (CMS) system.
The basic method is to cache your images in a language specific directory structure and then write an HTTP handler that effectively removes the additional directory layer. eg:
/images/
/en/
header1.gif
/es/
header1.gif
In your markup or CSS you would just reference /images/header1.gif. The http hander then uses session (if language is user specific), or config (if site specific) to choose which directory to serve the image from.
This provides a clean line bewteen code and content, and allows for client side caching. Resx is great for small strings but I much prefer a system like this for images and larger content. especially on the web where it is typically easy to switch images around.
I had the same problem a few years back and our interface team pointed us to SIFr. http://wiki.novemberborn.net/sifr/
You embed your font into a Flash movie and then use the SIFr JavaScript to dynamically convert your text into your font. Because it's client-side, there is no server-side impact.
If the user doesn't have Flash or JavaScript installed, they get the closest web-friendly font.
As an added bonus: because your content is still Text -- Google can search and index the content -- a huge SEO optimization.
Because of caching, I'd rather add only the image url into the resx. Caching is much better for static content (i-e plain files ) than for generated content.
I'd be very cautious about putting text in images at all, CSS with appropriate font-family fallback is probably the correct response on accessibility and good MVC grounds.
Where generation really is required I think Kiblee and JayArr outline good solutions
Usually Flash and Flex applications are embedded on in HTML using either a combination of object and embed tags, or more commonly using JavaScript. However, if you link directly to a SWF file it will open in the browser window and without looking in the address bar you can't tell that it wasn't embedded in HTML with the size set to 100% width and height.
Considering the overhead of the HTML, CSS and JavaScript needed to embed a Flash or Flex application filling 100% of the browser window, what are the downsides of linking directly to the SWF file instead? What are the upsides?
I can think of one upside and three downsides: you don't need the 100+ lines of HTML, JavaScript and CSS that are otherwise required, but you have no plugin detection, no version checking and you lose your best SEO option (progressive enhancement).
Update don't get hung up on the 100+ lines, I simply mean that the the amount of code needed to embed a SWF is quite a lot (and I mean including libraries like SWFObject), and it's just for displaying the SWF, which can be done without a single line by linking to it directly.
Upsides for linking directly to SWF file:
Faster access
You know it's a flash movie even before you click on the link
Skipping the html & js files (You won't use CSS to display 100% flash movie anyway)
Downsides:
You have little control on movie defaults.
You can't use custom background colors, transparency etc.
You can't use flashVars to send data to the movie from the HTML
Can't use fscommand from the movie to the page
Movie proportions are never the same as the user's window's aspect ratio
You can't compensate for browser incompetability (The next new browser comes out and you're in trouble)
No SEO
No page title, bad if you want people to bookmark properly.
No plugin information, download links etc.
If your SWF connects to external data sources, you might have cross domain problems.
Renaming the SWF file will also rename the link. Bad for versioning.
In short, for a complicated application - always use the HTML. For a simple animation movie you can go either way.
You also lose external control of the SWF. When it's embedded in HTML you can use javascript to communicate with the SWF. If the SWF is loaded directly that may not be possible.
Your 100+ lines quote seems pretty high to me. The HTML that FlashDevelop generates for embedding a SWF is only around 35 lines, with an include of a single swfobject.js file. You shouldn't need to touch the js file, and at the most would only have to tweak the HTML in very minor ways to get it to do what you want.
In my experience not all browsers handle this properly. I'm not really sure why (or which browsers) but I've mistakenly sent links like this to clients on occasion and they've often come back confused. I suspect their browser prompts them to download the file instead of displaying it properly.
One upside I can think of is being able to specify GET parameters in the direct URL to the SWF, which will then be available in the Flash app (via Application.application.parameters in Flex, not sure how you'd access them in Flash CS3). This can of course be achieved by other means as well if you have an HTML wrapper but this way it's less work.
Why would you need 100+ lines of code? Using something like swfobject reduces this amout quite some (and generally you don't want to do plugin detection, etc. by hand anyway).
More advantages:
Light weight look cuz you can get rid of the header with all the tool bars that seem to accumulate there and even the scroll bar is not needed. This enhances the impact when you are trying to show a lot of action in a short flash.
The biggie: you get it in a window that you can drag larger or smaller and make the movie larger and smaller. The player will resize the movie to fill the window you have. This is great for things like group photos where everyone wants to enlarge to find themselves and their friends. I've done this for a one frame Flash production!
Downsides:
As with popups in general, if you are asking for multiple ones from the same site, and you want different size popups, the browsers tend to simply override the size you ask for in window.open and reuse whatever is up. You need to close any open popup so the window.open will do a fresh create. It gets complicated, and I have not been able to get it to work across pages in a website. Anyone who has done this successfully, pls post how!
Adobe should be ashamed of themselves with the standard embed, which defeats the puprose of convention over configuration. Check ^swfobject (as mentioned above) or swfin