Currently, I'm scaling a 118x118 pixel PNG graphic to 19x19 and it looks terrible in IE7.
Just to note, I'm utilizing -ms-interpolation-mode: bicubic;
** Does IE generally not work as intended with PNGs?
Thanks
In general, trying to deliver a 120-ish pixel image and display it to the user at 20-ish pixels is not the best idea. You're going to have high overhead from the loading of the image that you don't really need, plus it's nearly always going to scale at a much lower quality than you could get from a rasterized image (and you're sending vector)
It's also not the best idea to be doing things so proprietary as using Microsoft's "special" functions. Yes, they work. But again, you're sending additional overhead to support one browser that's losing market share by the day. Insist on w3 standard functionality to do your work and everyone will be happier in the long run....especially the person who picks up your legacy code.
If you HAVE to do it this way, make use of an image manipulation library like GD or ImageMagick. Or, more simply, take the time to properly format your image or icon down with Photoshop, Gimp, or the like. For 2-3 minutes' worth of work, you'll have a happier user and be able to move on to more important things.
Related
As a web developer, I have to cut a layout similar to this (example website by Ruben Bristian):
Should I bother with cutting multiple small images like a logo:
a label:
and so on? Or should I just make one big background image with all elements like this:
and make a positioned <a href> with display: block; for a linked logo?
A single image has smaller size than multiple elements altogether. What are the other pros and cons?
Use separate images.
Here are a few reasons why:
Maintenance:
It's going to be much easier to maintain in the future, if/when there comes a point when you want to build on what you already have. Furthermore (and subjectively), the background image is not critical to the design. It wouldn't look broken if parts of the background were clipped. It would look broken however, if the logo were distorted.
Bear in mind also that newer, sharper displays are being developed. It's much easier to display the standard resolution background (it's already blurry, so clarity is not essential), and maintain two versions of the logo. One for standard displays, one for HD.
Semantics: What if the user has images disabled? Sure, it's unlikely, but what about Google? You should have some proper markup with real content. Your site needs real textual content in order for Google's crawlers to gather information about it. Use CSS image-replacement techniques to build the interface.
Another note on HD displays:
It's convention to serve larger images to HD (retina) displays, and use CSS to downsize them, effectively increasing their dots-per-inch. If you use just one image, the user will have to download a considerably large image. More bandwidth used by you, and slower experience for your users.
Furthermore, the text will look horrible on HD displays. It makes much more sense to allow the browser to render razor-sharp text to the user.
Accessibility: For a start, screen readers won't have a clue what your site is about. That might not be so relevant in this case, but it's best practice to build and accessible website. If you want to include some smaller text on the site, some users may be unable to read it. Normally they would increase the font-size, but if you use images, they're powerless.
I may have over-dramatised this answer, but the advice is well-intentioned.
I would honestly try a little bit of a different approach. The "photo" part of the image would be one image, the logo another, and maybe the double bar on either side of the heading another (but might not be necessary.
I would use the photo part as a bg image on a div, and within code the rest.
I wouldn't make the text part of the image at all. Try using a service like Google Web Fonts to get a good font.
The approach will save you lots of maintenance time, and also help with performance.
PROS:
Total bytes loaded is lower.
You do not have to worry about how little images are put together to become the total image.
if you just use 1 image you will find that it will be much easier to maintain the fluidity of the layout. You will not have padding/alignment issues, rendering issues, etc. Realistically the load time should be the same either way, maybe a tad longer for multiple images as the browser would have to render more css, but i imagine it would not be very noticable. In the end it really comes down to what is better for the job. I pretty biased towards 1 clean image :)
I guess you have to think about how you are going to use each element individually, and how they are going to change in the future.
You might want to change the logo, animate it, or want to re-use it elsewhere. The background image might change, or become multiple images in some sort of transitional gallery.
If this its never going to change (unlikely), then, yes, flatten it in a single image.
I personally would have as a separate background image. Then perhaps have the logo and the label on another transparent png and utilise css sprites to re-use them throughout the site. This will halve the number of requests required to download the logo/label, and allow you to optimise each image separately ie the complex background photo, and the more simple logo/label.
I often find myself in the need for matching up my webdesign to some reference-image. I used to use the PixelPerfect plugin for FireBug, to overlay an image on top of my design - however these days I mostly develop in Chrome, and there isn't a comparable tool to PixelPerfect.
My perfect tool would be some kind of HUD display that would overlay the entire screen, so I could use it disregarding whatever browser I'm currently working in.
How do you match up your webdesign to make it pixel perfect? Any tools and tips is highly appreciated.
How do you match up your webdesign to make it pixel perfect?
Don't, seriously.
There are so many devices and browsers and other factors that mean that, today more than ever, designs cannot be pixel perfect. To even try and make them so is going to cost a lot of time.
People don't compare websites between browsers so save yourself some valuable time and sanity!
A great way that I've seen done involves work on both ends, but it works nicely.
First, make sure that your designs fit a grid: repeating, same-sized columns with fixed width gutters. You can take that grid layer and turn it into a background image that you apply to your containers during development. That way, if anything doesn't line up with the grid, you'll see it immediately.
try online service like makiapp.com it just like pixelperfect for firebug.
I have to create a pretty complex map which is divided in pieces, which themselves are each pretty complex polygonal structures. These are given to me as transparent PNGs. Obviously i can't just use the rectangular PNG itself to define each mouse-sensitive area.
First and last thing that came to my mind was using Image-Maps.
But before i go down that road, i wanted to ask whether anyone could think of a more modern solution to this?
Browser support requirements are IE >= 7, FF >= 3, newer Chrome & Opera. So usage of CANVAS might not be an option.
When designing web documents, you should always choose the thing which come closes to expressing your intent, so that your documents are most adaptable to use-cases you didn't think of.
An image map is entirely appropriate for placing links on map images. <canvas> makes your document less interpretable. SVG would be a reasonable choice if it fits your data well, but is less widely implemented than image maps.
SVG would be a good choice, there are plugins to add compatibility for ancient IE versions. There's nothing really wrong with maps, just make sure it's really clear where the links go as the status bar doesn't have the info like a normal link.
IE7 won't do SVG or Canvas (unless you like plugins as Mr. Bradshaw points out), and while VML might work there, it is a quagmire. You could use some javascript to compute point-in-polygon on mousemove. But really, image-maps (either client-side or server-side) will probably be the simplest approach.
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.
This issue is obviously bigger than I thought! Using the VS2008 form designer for web pages, it'd a doddle to lay everything out using pixels. In fact, as far as I can tell, it's very hard to use absolution positioning and anything but pixels.
So my webapp has developed nicely until somebody mentioned the 120DPI issue and I've wandered off into another field which I've managed to kind of ignore.
I'm the person who thinks if you get a bigger monitor, it's because you want to display more windows on there with the same size text, not make everything bigger because you're 40 and your eyes are playing up ;-)
Given that there isn't a way for the designer to lay things out in anything apart from pixels, is there is half way house? I'm not about to go through every inline style changing from pixels to em values. Sorry, but that's just too much work for a volunteer written webapp.
Is it okay to keep pixels for the layout of text boxes etc. but switch to using some percentage based system for fonts? Will that size correctly?
This is only a problem in IE7. IE8 looks at the DPI setting and scales the x,y,w,h values as required. I appreciate this is both right and wrong at the same time. IE8 now works correctly with 120DPI where fixed pixel sizes have been used.
Cheers, Rob.
Have you considered not using such strict control over your sizes? In general, you will probably find it much easier to specify as few sizes and positions as possible. HTML is designed to handle size and position dynamically. The less you specify explicitly, the more able the browser is to arrange the page as needed to fit the user's browser size and viewing preferences.
Anyway, if you really must make heavy use of fixed positioning and such, I highly recommend you not use the visual designers in visual studio. They are very much NOT up to the task. I'd recommend looking around for other designer tools that handle the WYSIWYG stuff better. While I'm not a fan, dreamweaver does a respectable job with absolute positioning and has at least some support for aspx too.
Might I suggest using the YUI 'reset-fonts-grids.css' CSS from Yahoo, then you can use EMs as your units for fonts meaning the user's browser can decide how large or small to show the text.