Dreamweaver - images of different sizes

Author

images of different sizes

Alexander Ross

2006-02-24, 10:15 am

Just want to double check my logic here ... if I have the same exact image
appearing twice on the same page, one large (200px X 200px ) and one small
(50 X 50), its more page-load-time friendly to simply create one large
version of the image and use two <img> tags with different widths & heights
rather than creating two image ... yes?

(_seb_)

2006-02-24, 10:15 am

Alexander Ross wrote:
> Just want to double check my logic here ... if I have the same exact image
> appearing twice on the same page, one large (200px X 200px ) and one small
> (50 X 50), its more page-load-time friendly to simply create one large
> version of the image and use two <img> tags with different widths & heights
> rather than creating two image ... yes?
>
>

yes. only one image will load instead of two.

--
seb ( ---@webtrans1.com)
http://webtrans1.com | high-end web design
Downloads: Slide Show, Directory Browser, Mailing List

Murray *TMM*

2006-02-24, 10:15 am

Yes.

Downsizing images in HTML *may* produce acceptible results. It may not,
too. Upsizing them usually creates a train wreck....

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================

"Alexander Ross" <aross@dosomething.org> wrote in message
news:dtn4o1$8mp$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Just want to double check my logic here ... if I have the same exact image
> appearing twice on the same page, one large (200px X 200px ) and one small
> (50 X 50), its more page-load-time friendly to simply create one large
> version of the image and use two <img> tags with different widths &
> heights rather than creating two image ... yes?
>

Joe Makowiec

2006-02-24, 10:15 am

On 24 Feb 2006 in macromedia.dreamweaver, Alexander Ross wrote:

> Just want to double check my logic here ... if I have the same exact
> image appearing twice on the same page, one large (200px X 200px )
> and one small (50 X 50), its more page-load-time friendly to simply
> create one large version of the image and use two <img> tags with
> different widths & heights rather than creating two image ... yes?

Well, yes, but:
- A 50x50 image shouldn't be all that large in terms of file size. If
it is, you should take a good look at why.
- Even a 200x200 images shouldn't be all that big. See above.
- Images which are resized using HTML attributes, rather than resizing
using an image editing app, tend to look like crap.
- Images which are resized out of proportion (ie 200x200 => 50x40) tend
to look even worse.
- The only exception to the above is if you're using a solid-color or
transparent image as a spacer. However, in this day and age of being
able to do things like that with CSS, there's less reason to do it.

Given all of the above, create a thumbnail.

And just for the record: optimal page load time is about 10 seconds,
particularly on an initial page. To achieve 10 second download time
for a user on a 56K dialup, total page weight (HTML + images + external
CSS + external javascript) should be around 45-50K. I'm getting less
strict about this, depending on the site. You have to examine your
target audience and broadband penetration. In South Korea, it's around
100%; US I think it's finally over 50%. But if your target market is
online gamers, wherever you are I'd suspect it approaches 100%.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.net/
Email: http://makowiec.net/email.php

(_seb_)

2006-02-24, 10:15 am

Murray *TMM* wrote:
> Yes.
>
> Downsizing images in HTML *may* produce acceptible results. It may not,
> too. Upsizing them usually creates a train wreck....
>

right, you might want to test how your reduced image will look in different browsers.
If it's a jpeg, it will most likely look fine in any browser (although it might look quite pixelated
in IE, whose image rendering is inferior to other browsers when images are not at actual size)
if it is a gif, it will most likely look pretty bad in most browsers and very bad in IE.

--
seb ( ---@webtrans1.com)
http://webtrans1.com | high-end web design
Downloads: Slide Show, Directory Browser, Mailing List