i have a 100x100px image and i need to show that in 3 different dimensions in html,
50x50 60x60 70x70
so my dubt is if better to save img in 3 dimensions then do not use css or html width and height or if to use same img with css rules about dimensions... which solution is faster rendered ?
It depends.
If you are using the same image, Only 1 time image cache is required by the browser. So If you are displaying more than 1 type of image in the same page then dont go for multiple images. Otherwise go for multiple images.
But honestly, 100x100 if you have, It should not be a problem to load. Only in slow connections it will be problem (<128kbps). Otherwise i dont see a considerable difference.
I wouldn't worry too much about rendering speed, the main difference you'll see is in terms of image quality. Some browsers (Chrome) perform very high quality image interpolation, while others (IE, Firefox) opt for a faster algorithm that does not give as nice of a result. So you'll get the best, most consistent image quality by having the three separate image files, one for each size.
That said, since you're only scaling from 100x100 to a minimum size of 50x50 you probably don't need to worry too much about interpolation artifacts either. So I'd recommend just doing whatever is most convenient for you to implement.
And in terms of pure rendering speed, having the separate images will be faster, because no interpolation step is required in that case. In terms of initial page-load speed, however, having a single image will be faster, because there is only 1 file to download instead of 3 (or 4). As for using CSS or HTML tag attributes to set the width and height, there will be practically no difference in speed. The expensive operation is the interpolation of the image itself, and it doesn't make much difference if you specify the interpolation through CSS or through tag attributes.
Related
Assuming you have a ton of images to display(20+) on a page, is it better to use a set of pngs with transparent backgrounds causing a rounded image effect or to use jpgs and round the images using css?
I'm trying to significantly increase performance for a client site. Purely speaking from a user-performance aspect, which of the following options are likely to provide better results.
Option 1 -
Image format: png with transparent edges making images look like circles.
Option 2 -
Image format: jpg
Images rounded to appear as circles using the border-radius css property.
Feel free to provide insight. It helps to understand this when asked in the future.
This depends entirely on what you are refering to as "performance".
If you are talking about download speed: This depends on the type and size of your images. Usually bigger photographs with a lot of detail end up better as jpgs, graphics, images with sharp edges and smaller stuff are better as pngs.
If you are talking about rendering performance: Given your images had same size, regardless of type, using border-radii is of course slower when rendering, but with modern browsers, this should not really be a big deal.
I think the biggest factor is choosing the right image format for your use case and then deciding whether it is worth it having a person prepare all the images with transparent pixels instead of just letting the browser do the work.
I would suggest there are other areas on the page that could improve performance in a more significant way (etc. performant javascript, lazyloading of images, efficient markup (minimizing your code,choosing proper compression,...)).
I've read a lot about the benefits of using sprites in css for icons and logos, but this seems to be largely used for lossless formats such as gif and png. I'm wondering if the benefits are still there with jpegs and images? I want to build a header from a number of smaller pictures that may be displayed in different orders. Will combining them into a single jpg still have the speed benefits of the normal use cases for sprites?
It might depending how big those jpegs are. Usually images are combined to reduce http calls back to the server. If they are small in size then combine them, if not then leave them separate and call which ever ones you need.
The main benefit of using the sprites for multiple images is that it provides a smaller amount of header information being sent. Therefore having larger pictures inside of the sprite would have less of an overall impact on the whole project, there would be a small increase but the adaptability of the system is reduced using sprites. If the picture is going to be changed at any point i would keep it outside of the sprite.
You can reap the same benefits in terms of reduced round-trips, etc. but:
The level of compression is likely to suffer; JPEG is tuned to reduce the size of single images, and does poorly with abrupt transitions (as in a collage, which your meta-image would basically be)
For the same reason, it's possible that the edges of your sprite images will be less sharp than they are now, as they're being lossily compressed (and so slightly combined) along with adjacent image data.
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.
Does it matter how long and wide an image is when using CSS sprites? I noticed the SO sprite image is one long image, with all the sprites on top of each other.
Would having the sprites grouped together increase performance?
Due to png's filter/compression algorithm, large swaths of uniformly-colored pixels barely contribute to the file size.
The minor file-size cost of arranging your sprite vertically (like Stack Overflow), as opposed to squeezing your icons into a perfect square, is probably well worth the benefits of having cleaner CSS and a more maintainable sprite.
It would increase performance if you could reduce the image size. I doubt it would increase performance by much because reducing the image size will not reduce the amount of requests which is the whole reason for using sprites. That said, someone using dial-up might notice a difference.
Yes in few cases it would, because collectively many different images have a larger size than a single large images. Also the there will be no need for sending request for each image, all the required images will be available in a single sprite image. Then later your css will cut and use the required areas.
The difference will be noticed in low bandwidth connections where with multiple images each will be rendered with a little time gap, where as in a sprite based css, each will show almost simultaniously
Is the only benefit of using css image sprites that there is less http requests?
Or is there other benefits?
Also is there an easy way of detiming which area of a sprite to show?
Like you said, one of the main advantage is to reduce the number of requests to the server, improving the response time (especially if you're loading a large amount of small images). But this is not the only reasons people use sprites.
If you don't use sprites for a "mouse over" display, the user will see the image disappear for a second... and it looks really bad. This is because if you change the image instead of just moving the sprite around it will load a new image and the loading time can be visible to the end user.
.bad{
background:url(abc.jpg);
}
.bad:hover{
background:url(abcHover.jpg);
}
.good{
background:url(abc.jpg) 0px 0px;
}
.good:hover{
background-position:15px 0px;
}
Another advantage of sprites is that you can keep all your images in one location and in some cases it makes more sense (for menus and so on).
To determine which area of a sprite to show, just use photoshop or any other image editing software.
The primary benefit is your pages load faster, mainly because of reduced HTTP requests.
You could generate your sprite using a tool.
Disclaimer - I wrote this tool.
It is much easier to get image placement (especially next to text) the same cross-browser. You can adjust images up/down/left/right with out using vertical-align and padding.
I find it easier to keep track of all the images if they are in a single file. Especially since I usually have a transparent png images and and then use gif images for ie6. I save my png sprite map as a gif and add one line with background-image in my ie6 css and my images are switched.
I use photoshop or gimp to get approximate locations in the sprite map and then use firefox to fine-tune the placement.
Yes, there is another benefit. Every image file has his own headers, describing image type, colors etc. So when you combine images to a single sprite, you win some kb.
But as you said before, mostly you win by reducing HTTP requests count.
In terms of determining the area to show, I will typically place my elements on pixels that are multiples of 100. So if there's a sprite with a bunch of 64x64 pixel icons, I'll typically have them at (0, 100), (0, 200), (0, 300), etc.
This way, I don't have to type in an exact measurement (or any other developer for that matter) and save keystrokes when setting all my background-position properties.