Gap between images in Firefox

In article <slrnfb9qip.5jj.spamspam DeleteThis @bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <spamspam DeleteThis @spam.eggs> wrote:

> What's the point though, why not just use one big image? Is the idea
> that over a slow connection you will see the image appear in slices?

As I understand it, slicing was partly touted as a way of
reducing file sizes because some parts can be more compressed
than other parts without unduly compromising the overall look.

It can also be a deliberate strategy to make a pic appear in
jigsaw bits for purely aesthetic reasons. There are umpteen ways
to make the opening credits of films, and so too introducing folk
to a website (the worst imaginable way is to make them wait for
Flash movie to load, a picture loading in jigsaws is almost
rivetting by comparison!)

I usually prefer to prepare pics as progressive loading, so they
appear sharper and sharper with each "pass" for the slow
connections.

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:
> In article <slrnfb9qip.5jj.spamspam.RemoveThis@bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spamspam.RemoveThis@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>> What's the point though, why not just use one big image? Is the idea
>> that over a slow connection you will see the image appear in slices?
>
> As I understand it, slicing was partly touted as a way of
> reducing file sizes because some parts can be more compressed
> than other parts without unduly compromising the overall look.
>
> It can also be a deliberate strategy to make a pic appear in
> jigsaw bits for purely aesthetic reasons. There are umpteen ways
> to make the opening credits of films, and so too introducing folk
> to a website (the worst imaginable way is to make them wait for
> Flash movie to load, a picture loading in jigsaws is almost
> rivetting by comparison!)
>
> I usually prefer to prepare pics as progressive loading, so they
> appear sharper and sharper with each "pass" for the slow
> connections.
>


Another nice thing would be to put your text in a color easily seen!
That bit of dark blue text on the black background is a bitch to see for
sure. For you that did not see it the text is on the lower left side
across from the search box it says "Skip to content"

On 2007-08-04, dorayme <doraymeRidThis.TakeThisOut@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <slrnfb9qip.5jj.spamspam.TakeThisOut@bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spamspam.TakeThisOut@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>> What's the point though, why not just use one big image? Is the idea
>> that over a slow connection you will see the image appear in slices?
>
> As I understand it, slicing was partly touted as a way of
> reducing file sizes because some parts can be more compressed
> than other parts without unduly compromising the overall look.

Unless you manually make the compression more lossy for some slices,
slicing is always going to make the total bigger. Each slice will need
its own headers and in general compression works better the more data
you give it to work with at a time.

[...]
> I usually prefer to prepare pics as progressive loading, so they
> appear sharper and sharper with each "pass" for the slow
> connections.

Yes, that used to be done quite often. The downside is that a
progressive jpeg is a bit bigger in total file size and slower to load
completely.

On Aug 4, 5:06 pm, Ben C <spams... RemoveThis @spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2007-08-04, zeeeej <zjenni... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>

> Add table#TAG_Header img { display: block; }

Ben: Thank you! That was what I needed! But now I would like to do it
"right" using a single image, text and a hover effect.

Beauregard (or anyone else): What's the best way to get the text as
close (appearance and positioning) to what it looks like now? Am I
right in thinking I use position:absolute and a:hover?

I'm going to apologize again for my stupid questions before
proceeding. This really is the first time I've done any of this.

The font in use there is Futura Bold Condensed. Is that a font I can
safely call in a web page? If not, what commonly used font would you
recommend to get a look similar to what's there?

In article <slrnfbb3sd.5jj.spamspam.DeleteThis@bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <spamspam.DeleteThis@spam.eggs> wrote:

> On 2007-08-04, dorayme <doraymeRidThis.DeleteThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > In article <slrnfb9qip.5jj.spamspam.DeleteThis@bowser.marioworld>,
> > Ben C <spamspam.DeleteThis@spam.eggs> wrote:
> >
> >> What's the point though, why not just use one big image? Is the idea
> >> that over a slow connection you will see the image appear in slices?
> >
> > As I understand it, slicing was partly touted as a way of
> > reducing file sizes because some parts can be more compressed
> > than other parts without unduly compromising the overall look.
>
> Unless you manually make the compression more lossy for some slices,
> slicing is always going to make the total bigger. Each slice will need
> its own headers and in general compression works better the more data
> you give it to work with at a time.
>

Of course, that is the idea, you are right, manually. Otherwise,
it would have to be a pretty clever program to know what was
important in a pic. I am not, of course, endorsing the
practicality of it. When it comes down to it, it is almost never
worth the bother.
>
> [...]
> > I usually prefer to prepare pics as progressive loading, so they
> > appear sharper and sharper with each "pass" for the slow
> > connections.
>
> Yes, that used to be done quite often. The downside is that a
> progressive jpeg is a bit bigger in total file size and slower to load
> completely.

Not bigger but smaller in my experience and practice. As for
slower loading to finality, I take your word for this and must
schedule some experiments to see for myself sometime.

The other motivation I might mention about slicing is to
introduce a bit of actual html text into the pic area. It is
mostly a ghastly thing to do, but a few clicks either way of text
upping or downing can be not too disruptive in certain types of
largish pics (the pic remains the same, the slice behind the text
being specially prepared to have the expected background of that
part of the picture, the text is slightly easier to read within a
narrow range). This is an accessibility argument. I do not
endorse it.

--
dorayme