Click- Image enlarge |
Author: |
Message: |
Rubber Stamp
Senior Member
It Was Never Random
Posts: 587 Reputation: 14
35 / / –
Joined: May 2004
|
RE: Click- Image enlarge
yeah...use some editor to resize the pic to a seperate file and then link them together...the one on the plus site seems really advanced....
|
|
08-15-2005 03:46 PM |
|
|
Veggie
Full Member
Posts: 415 Reputation: 21
37 / /
Joined: Sep 2004
|
RE: Click- Image enlarge
its VERY bad practice to use the large image as the thumbnail!
One of the reasons for thumbnails is to reduce loading times, and that wont happen if you use the original file.
|
|
08-15-2005 03:49 PM |
|
|
Millenium_edition
Veteran Member
Posts: 1787 Reputation: 57
Joined: Apr 2003
|
RE: Click- Image enlarge
quote: Originally posted by Veggie
its VERY bad practice to use the large image as the thumbnail!
One of the reasons for thumbnails is to reduce loading times, and that wont happen if you use the original file.
they both have advantages and disadvantages... the large image will always have the advantage that it loads instantly when you click it, which is a much more pleasant experience for broadband users...
|
|
08-15-2005 03:57 PM |
|
|
Veggie
Full Member
Posts: 415 Reputation: 21
37 / /
Joined: Sep 2004
|
RE: Click- Image enlarge
that is true but thumbnails are ment to help 56kers.. also resizing the image using html createds really low quality thumbnails.
|
|
08-15-2005 04:00 PM |
|
|
CookieRevised
Elite Member
Posts: 15517 Reputation: 173
– / /
Joined: Jul 2003
Status: Away
|
RE: RE: Click- Image enlarge
quote: Originally posted by Millenium_edition
quote: Originally posted by Veggie
its VERY bad practice to use the large image as the thumbnail!
One of the reasons for thumbnails is to reduce loading times, and that wont happen if you use the original file.
they both have advantages and disadvantages... the large image will always have the advantage that it loads instantly when you click it, which is a much more pleasant experience for broadband users...
broadband users don't feel a thing when they need to load an extra 500 bytes for a thumbnail in case they both load the thumbnail and afterwards the original picture... It is always a bad practice.
.-= A 'frrrrrrrituurrr' for Wacky =-.
|
|
08-15-2005 04:19 PM |
|
|
Millenium_edition
Veteran Member
Posts: 1787 Reputation: 57
Joined: Apr 2003
|
RE: Click- Image enlarge
quote: Originally posted by CookieRevised
broadband users don't feel a thing when they need to load an extra 500 bytes for a thumbnail in case they both load the thumbnail and afterwards the original picture... It is always a bad practice.
i'm talking about 2.2 megabytes, not about 500 bytes
|
|
08-15-2005 04:23 PM |
|
|
CookieRevised
Elite Member
Posts: 15517 Reputation: 173
– / /
Joined: Jul 2003
Status: Away
|
RE: Click- Image enlarge
So am I....
The 500KB is the "extra" data needed to load for the thumbnails only.
Example 1: without the aid of a thumbnail
blah1.png to blah10.png are 1024x1024x32b images which are 2MB in filesize each.
<a href="blah1.png"><img src="blah1.png" width="100" height="100"></a>
<a href="blah2.png"><img src="blah2.png" width="100" height="100"></a>
etc...
Yes, after a extremely long wait the images are preloaded and when you click on a thumbnail the image appears instantly, but everyone (broadband users as well as 56K'ers) will load ALL the images at once. That is 10x2MB=20MB of data, just to see the thumbnails only!!! Imagine the long wait for 56K'ers...
Example 2: with the aid of a thumbnail
blah1.png to blah10.png are 1024x1024x32b images which are 2MB in filesize each.
blah1THUMB.png to blah10THUMB.png are 100x100x4b images which are 500 bytes in filesize each.
<a href="blah1.png"><img src="blah1THUMB.png" width="100" height="100"></a>
<a href="blah2.png"><img src="blah2THUMB.png" width="100" height="100"></a>
etc...
When the page is loaded, only 10x500 bytes= 5KB is to be loaded. This is both for 56K'ers as well as for broadband user extremely faster then the 20MB needed in the first (bad) example.
When the users wants to view an image in full, he clicks on the 500 byte thumbnail and the original full image is loaded. This is each time 2MB.
In the end, and when the user clicked on every thumbnail (which in practice very rarely occurs) he will have loaded 20MB+5KB in data. That's only 5KB data more then in the first example, yet he had a very quick viewing experience when the page initially loaded.
5KB is also something a broadband user will not feel at all, especially compared to 20MB. And even a 56K'er will not feel the extra 5KB much.
---------
Using the HTML resize elements width and height on big pictures to simulate thumbnails is ALWAYS a bad thing to do. There are no advantages for example 1 at all, it is simply a very bad practice...
This post was edited on 08-16-2005 at 11:47 AM by CookieRevised.
.-= A 'frrrrrrrituurrr' for Wacky =-.
|
|
08-16-2005 10:22 AM |
|
|
L. Coyote
Senior Member
Captain Obvious
Posts: 981 Reputation: 49
39 / /
Joined: Aug 2004
Status: Away
|
RE: Click- Image enlarge
Indeed, I agree with Cookie.
If you don't know what programs to use, get IrfanView (free image viewer and editor). It will batch resize your images to create thumbnails.
This post was edited on 08-16-2005 at 11:43 AM by L. Coyote.
Hack, hack, hack!
Finally became a Systems Analyst!
|
|
08-16-2005 11:40 AM |
|
|
Rubber Stamp
Senior Member
It Was Never Random
Posts: 587 Reputation: 14
35 / / –
Joined: May 2004
|
RE: Click- Image enlarge
use photoshop...no probs
|
|
08-16-2005 04:48 PM |
|
|
Ezra
Veteran Member
Forgiveness is between them and God
Posts: 1960 Reputation: 31
37 / /
Joined: Mar 2003
|
RE: Click- Image enlarge
You can also make a php script to generate the right thumbnail
|
|
08-16-2005 04:54 PM |
|
|
Pages: (3):
« First
«
1
[ 2 ]
3
»
Last »
|
|