Shoutbox

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...