I've observed that often the websites use only one background image which contains multiple images on it. For example, instead of using separately icons, all of the icons are put on one image and then the different parts of image are used in different section.
Is there any advantage to this?
How can this be used?
For example, for the following Stack Overflow sprite, how would I display just one of the images?
The technique is called CSS Sprites. Basically you use CSS's background-position property and fixed height or width for your element.
If your elemnts are fixed width and fixed height at the same time you can freely create a more compact image. See this site for more complex examples.
You are talking about CSS sprites, in which the background position changes on hover. Learn more here:
http://css-tricks.com/css-sprites/
Change the css property background-position.
yes , using sprites is good for website performs because every single component on website send different http request .So, when we use sprites images the http request become less & website performance increase.That rule is also apply on css also less css files less http request. you can yourself with the help of safari web inspector.
for more better performance download "yslow"
And with CSS sprites is also possible to make e.g. menu button hover effect without waiting until second image loads. see
It has the advantage that only one image needs to be loaded so that things like hover (roll-over) effects are faster. The technique is usually called "CSS sprites". Google for it.
It has been common for a while to put two images on one sprite sheet, but the tendency has been moving towards combining ALL of your background images on the same sprite sheet to load just one file for all of them. There's a rather good tutorial here.
Related
I am a newby to design and looking now into the use of background instead of foreground images, which is a common practice.
I look at the techniques used, and see that:
you usually need to explicitly state the dimensions of the image (and set the foreground element to these dimensions)
you need to make the foreground element to somehow disappear with css tricks.
All this looks really hackish. So, I wonder, why on earth do all this instead of just using the native element? I am sure there is a good answer
(I did go through this When to use IMG vs. CSS background-image? , and could not figure out a clear answer)
One thing to consider as a benefit to using CSS for images is that you can load all your design images (images for UI elements, etc) with one http request rather than an http request for each individual image using a sprite. One large image that contains a grid of all your images.
As its been stated before, content images should use the img tag which also helps for people using various accessibility options when visiting your site/app. For example, if they are using a screenreader, the screenreader knows its an image and can read the img alt name or title, but if its just a div with a background image they get nothing.
The main difference is that in the img tag the image is hardcoded.
With CSS you can create different designs, switch between them, redesign the page, without altering the source code. To see the power of CSS, check http://www.csszengarden.com/, all the pages use the same HTML source, but with different CSS layout.
As #Shmiddty noted, if img is for embedded images (actual content, for example a gallery, or a picture for an article), and CSS is for design.
Also, the question you referred to, has nice list of all the use-cases: When to use CSS background-image.
The goal is to separate content from presentation. HTML should contain just content, and all presentation should be moved to the CSS. Once you achieve that, you gain a few useful side effects:
The CSS (presentational code) is cached by the user's browser, and each HTML file requested is smaller. This also has some SEO benefits (decreased code fluff).
Screen readers have to muddle through less when interpreting your page for visually impaired users. Making sure your HTML contains just content means visually impaired users reach what they're looking for much quicker.
CSS makes it possible to display the same content in different visual configurations, which is the cornerstone of the responsive web design movement. Properly delineating your content and presentation means being able to use the same HTML files across multiple platforms (desktop, tablet, smartphone).
However, there are times when images are content on a specific page. In those cases, you want to use an IMG tag, and moving the image to the CSS is actually a wrong move. A great discussion of when and where to use text to image replacement is at When to use IMG vs. CSS background-image? Basically, my personal litmus test is something like: Is this image going to be used multiple times on the site? If it is, it's probably part of the design. Once-off images are generally content.
If you're looking to move your design images to the CSS, congratulations :-p You've adopted a healthy amount of work, but started doing something worthwhile to the long-term health of your website as part of the web ecosystem. I would highly recommend looking into using the SASS/Compass system to manage your design images as sprites (see A List Apart:CSS Sprites and Spriting with Compass).
One of the main points of image replacement is to use your site title in a h1 tag for good SEO, and then hiding the text and replacing it with a custom logo.
This also makes your site more accessible. Say for example, your user has CSS disabled for whatever reason (screenreaders, maybe). They would still see the textual representation of your site title, whereas normal users would see the custom graphic.
In other topics I've found that IE/FF doesn't print background images by default. Now that's a shame, because background images add some possibilities that are very difficult to reproduce with classical <img> tags:
You can align them both horizontally and vertically
You can crop them if they are larger than the target element (which also enables the idea of CSS sprites)
Now, it's not impossible to do, but it will require me to have different HTML layouts for printing and normal page, and the printing layout will be quite overcomplicated (since I'll have to use <table>s to achieve vertical alignment). Also, the benefits of CSS sprites will be lost.
Is there any hope? I gather that #media print doesn't help, but isn't there something else, maybe browser-specific, that would allow one to say: "Yes, this isn't a normal background, it really needs to be there even in print view"?
Not possible. You would have to some how convert your background images to img or use Canvas. Of course using canvas depends on which IE you supporting.
Its a browser setting which restricts the printing of background images. I think the logic behind it was that the vendors wanted to give the users the option of printing background images and ensure that the web developer could not alter these settings through some sort of script.
As a general rule, background images should be reserved for adding to the page design but aren't essential to understanding the content. Therefore it shouldn't matter if they are missing when the page is printed. If something (such as a product shot) is important, then it should be included as an actual image (which has the added bonus of being more accessible).
Could you look at including the image, then hiding it using CSS and duplicating is as a background image (perhaps dynamically using JS)? That way, you can ensure the image itself shows in your print stylesheet, and you get the benefits that having a background image brings. I've created a very simple example here.
i want to know about sprite technology used in css regarding fast accessing of the web pages.
They are cool because you can minimize http requests with them and make your page's performance improve. They are considered good in terms of SEO as well. Check out this for more info:
CSS Sprites: What They Are, Why They’re Cool, and How To Use Them
This page gives a pretty good overview.
Essentially it puts all of the page's images into one large image file and then uses CSS to display only parts of that file (to give the effect of multiple images). This has the advantage of only requiring the browser to make one request for all the images rather than a bunch of individual requests (each of which has an overhead).
If you have the group of icons for example , you are creating one jpg or png file and adding the images one after another. Then you just creating the backgrounds based on only one image and fixing it in percentage / pixels view. It makes your code organized and saves images loading time . For example , you have a window and it has close , unfold icon. You can create a png file named windowControlSprite.png that contains two icons one after another , then you can create properties in your css to this element. #somediv {background-position:0px -20px;}
Also, you can find CSS sprite X and Y easily with tools like http://www.getspritexy.com/
Otherwise you need to use image editors like Photoshop or use Firebug to find X and Y coordinates.
I want to put images of the 1024x768 as backgrounds and load quickly using css. I could use
background(url....)
in the CSS, but will that solve the issue, of downloading images quickl?
Thanks
Jean
If you have to use this technique, then remember to compress and cache the image, this will speed it up somewhat, but try and be creative with alternative solutions.
For example can the background repeat on the x-axis? If it can you'll be able to create a 1px wide version that you can repeat across the page.
Try searching for this. It helps cutting off a few KB of data. PNG Gauntlet is also a free software for PNG compression that also cuts Gama correction that causes problems with IE6 and IE7.
Body background images are usually saved with lower quality, thus reducing size.
If your backgrounds are changeable, preload them. It is done by putting divs of zero height at the beginning of the page, and assigning background-image style to each. The images are loaded at the beginning, so when the background of the body gets changed the user doesn't notice the lag.
Google started to count the load time already, so classic preloading causes problems with SEO. Loading with JS, after the page fully loads is an option, or even assigning styles with JS after certain actions are made is also a solution.
remember you can't change the user dsl speed. so css background would be good. Maybe start with take a higher JPEG compression to minimize the file
(btw. i hate (full size) background images at websites with my dsl light)
I noticed that Digg and Google are using a kind of CSS optimization in their GIF header image. For example digg uses this image:
Why are they using this technique and how to do it in my own site?
These are called CSS sprites. They are used to reduce the number of server requests.
Check out this nice article about them: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/sprites/
CSS Sprites: Image Slicing’s Kiss of Death:
A List Apart
Another article at Smashing
Magazine
A hack to support IE6
The purpose of this technique is to reduce HTTP-requests by combining all images.
It's called a css sprite
I believe these are called splices (or is it sprites); basically they load up the whole image one time and tell CSS to display only part of it, that way they avoid having to (pre)load lots and lots of images.
They add more responsiveness to the page, since consecutive images are loaded immediately.
As weichsel mentioned, check the article # A List Apart.
They use that technique so one image is downloaded rather than the browser potentially making many different connections to download multiple images.
You can then "crop" the image as a CSS background-image using a combination of CSS properties like "background-position" and "width".
The the links the others are posting while I write this probably have good techniques to crop the images.