Why are FPA ads a bunch of small graphics - GoFuckYourself.com

Chris R · 03-17-2002, 04:34 PM

Hello,

I was curious as to why FPAs, tours, and such are made up of small graphics in a table.

I realize sometimes you need to do this if you use text, or .gif & .jpg in the same ad.

What is the reason when they are not? Just to make things look like they are loading to the dialup surfer - or are smaller chunks easier to handle by routers and such?

Just wondering....

Dammy · 03-17-2002, 04:42 PM

what you said about using .jpg and .gif +
1. it loads faster
2. easier to edit if you need to make small changes to the text or whatever

i'm sure there's other factors as well

Pipecrew · 03-17-2002, 04:48 PM

yeah mostly for faster loading

SetTheWorldonFire · 03-17-2002, 04:59 PM

Sliced images are way better than just one whole image. 2 reasons.

1. They're right, it loads faster.
2. You can optimize each slice for better quality.

tha_timinator · 03-17-2002, 05:06 PM

+ on a erronious (?) connection the surfer will still see the what's it about, even if a few chunks don't load... if it's one pic and it doesn't load, the surfer will click close anyway.

deluxe · 03-18-2002, 12:11 AM

For a number of reasons: animation is an important one and it loads faster.

^R3K^ · 03-18-2002, 12:23 AM

When it?s smaller images it weighs less, so the little men can carry it up to your monitor faster. On one big image it takes them longer to carry it up there because it?s so heavy.

mule · 03-18-2002, 12:26 AM

LOL ^R3K^

Rictor · 03-18-2002, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ^R3K^
When it?s smaller images it weighs less, so the little men can carry it up to your monitor faster. On one big image it takes them longer to carry it up there because it?s so heavy.

I have little women working in my computer. I'm an equal opportunity type of guy...

Amputate Your Head · 03-18-2002, 08:03 AM

1. Gif animations combined with jpegs for better quality.
2. Url linking.
3. Infinate symetrical non-resolution dependent interface expansion. (Normally in one direction, 2 isn't uncommon, and I have made some that expand in 3, and of course, 4 is possible.
4. Ease of owner modification to things like, an image that needs to change frequently or text that must be changeable on the fly.
5. Loading times? yeah.. I suppose that's helped too. But not one of the most important reasons.

shunga · 03-18-2002, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amputate Your Head
5. Loading times? yeah.. I suppose that's helped too. But not one of the most important reasons.

Well, if the surfer has a slow connection, you want something on the screen to keep their interest, otherwise they hit the "no, thanks" link and skip the FPA, or close the window and miss your whole tour.

AdultWire · 03-18-2002, 12:16 PM

So the "no thanks, I am a waste of your bandwidth, send me to popup hell" button loads faster.

Amputate Your Head · 03-18-2002, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shunga

Well, if the surfer has a slow connection, you want something on the screen to keep their interest, otherwise they hit the "no, thanks" link and skip the FPA, or close the window and miss your whole tour.

of course... but that is not a main reason for slicing.... it's a benefit. You can't predict the level of shittiness of some given surfer's connection..... what if he's havin' a bad hair day and his connection is hanging on every page he goes to? That just an incidental of the nature of the technology....

Slicing an interface is not a random thing done to aggravate people by having a bunch of small images or because you're feeling *artistic* with the slicer... hehe.... slices have real purpose..... and they are all the things I mentioned up there.... if it happens to get something up on their screen faster than loading one big image, then great.... but that is not WHY slices are used...

hehehe.... amateurs..... gotta love 'em.... they're cute...

Ludedude · 03-18-2002, 01:58 PM

Actually, I'm not sure the slices load faster. There is a lot more code and calls to the server in order to display a sliced image. In reality, I think they load slower than a single image displaying the same thing.

However, and it's been said up there ^ by the master, it gives you a shitload more flexibility if you need to optimize or change something.

Chris R · 03-18-2002, 02:46 PM

Ok - I got everything except:

"3. Infinate symetrical non-resolution dependent interface expansion. (Normally in one direction, 2 isn't uncommon, and I have made some that expand in 3, and of course, 4 is possible. "

Does this have anything to do with time travel?
Of course 4 is possible?!? Am I the only one that didn't get that

Does it REALLY load faster - or just appear bit by bit to LOOK faster. I thought maybe it loaded faster - if the web took image chunks kind of like hard drives have little slices that go unused. If you have a 32k block on your hard drive and it uses 4k - it still takes up 32k. Wasn't sure if this was why it was done, but it appears not to be. If I have a 100k image - that is split into 10 10 k images - will the FINAL 10k piece load faster than the entire 100K image - or just a tiny bit slower, because of the extra html?

Again - just curious - as I see this being used on even small (500 x 300) graphics and even smaller (google was using it on their main page for about a month - but then switched back) They are still using it on the results page:

http://www.google.com/images/res0.gif
http://www.google.com/images/res1.gif
http://www.google.com/images/res2.gif

Amputate Your Head · 03-18-2002, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris R
Ok - I got everything except:

"3. Infinate symetrical non-resolution dependent interface expansion. (Normally in one direction, 2 isn't uncommon, and I have made some that expand in 3, and of course, 4 is possible. "

Look above this.... the top of the page.... see the GFY header up there? It's sliced up in a way that allows it to expand horizontally.... FOREVER....

You could display this page on a fuckin' 40 foot wide Jumbotron at a football game and that header would keep expanding all the way across.... it will never end.

I do this for stuff like that header..... and beyond... I'm building a site right now that expands horizontally in both directions, interface centered... and expands infinately veritcally (downward)....

Think OUTSIDE the rules of what's normal..... this is where you're true creativity will fuckin' shine.

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris R
Does this have anything to do with time travel?
Of course 4 is possible?!? Am I the only one that didn't get that

Like I said... I'm working on one that expands 3 ways right now... a fourth direction is possible as well..... horizontally in both directions, and vertically in both directions.... a tricky mutherfucker to figure out the slice formula to make that work? Damn right it is.... (maybe not a singular direction so much.....) but that's what I do.... I'm the guy you pay to figure that shit out man.

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris R
Does it REALLY load faster - or just appear bit by bit to LOOK faster.

as a whole? No.... it doesn't.... it APPEARS to for the end user.

Chris R · 03-18-2002, 03:40 PM

Ah - I get it now. Thanks. When you are feeling better - still send me that quote

Amputate Your Head · 03-18-2002, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris R
Ah - I get it now. Thanks. When you are feeling better - still send me that quote

You didn't get it yet???

Nitro! I'm going to have to beat you again!

sorry dude... I'll get it to you asap.

shunga · 03-18-2002, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amputate Your Head
if it happens to get something up on their screen faster than loading one big image, then great.... but that is not WHY slices are used...

I think we've probably all seen slices used for no other reason than to get something on screen as fast as possible, but I'd agree, most of the time it's used to blend GIF's and JPEG's and to give greater flexibility.

Amputate Your Head · 03-18-2002, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shunga

I think we've probably all seen slices used for no other reason than to get something on screen as fast as possible

true... but just because something is used improperly doesn't mean that use becomes a *purpose* for it ... hehe.... I can use my cell phone to prop up my beach chair.... but that's not what it was designed for... know what I mean?

shunga · 03-18-2002, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amputate Your Head
true... but just because something is used improperly doesn't mean that use becomes a *purpose* for it ... hehe.... I can use my cell phone to prop up my beach chair.... but that's not what it was designed for... know what I mean?

The question was WHY is slicing used, not the validity of each use.

I think if you have a straight JPEG that's large enough to need slicing, you're doing something wrong.

TaDoW · 03-18-2002, 04:43 PM

to give you an example, I was playing around with an extremely graphic front end of DormAngels a while back ... as one optimized .gif file it was about 190Kb, after chopping it up and optimizing each file, changing some .gifs to .jpg, etc. .. I got it down to about 80Kb

Amputate Your Head · 03-18-2002, 05:33 PM

First of all, you need to know what you're working with.

Number one: Use freakin' jpeg over gif when you don't need animation. It's a lossy format, but it offers the best goddamned clarity you're gonna get for the web. From there it's just a matter of the compression you choose.

Number two: If you have no other need for a precise slice formula, AND you're bent on getting your logo or something up as fast as possible for the surfer, then yes... slice it out or separate it or use progressive compression so it loads first/faster.

But as a collection of slices as a whole, it's not going to load your page any faster than one big ass image.... compression percentages do that. Do you slice your Large images that are linked from your thumbs? If they load faster sliced then why not? Because they don't. It's pointless.

It's not magic people.... bust out your calculators and crunch the numbers.... the sizing formulas are not that complex.

Amputate Your Head · 03-18-2002, 05:45 PM

If any of you ever get the opportunity to attend an Adobe seminar.... DO IT! Fuck whatever it costs, and do it.... those people seriously know their shit when it comes to graphics.... take notes..... and listen to every fucking word..... you won;t regret it. The last one I was able to go to was back in '98 I think..... awesome fucking people....

03-17-2002, 04:34 PM	#1
Chris R Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 1,151	Why are FPA ads a bunch of small graphics Hello, I was curious as to why FPAs, tours, and such are made up of small graphics in a table. I realize sometimes you need to do this if you use text, or .gif & .jpg in the same ad. What is the reason when they are not? Just to make things look like they are loading to the dialup surfer - or are smaller chunks easier to handle by routers and such? Just wondering....

03-17-2002, 04:42 PM	#2
Dammy Registered User Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 76	what you said about using .jpg and .gif + 1. it loads faster 2. easier to edit if you need to make small changes to the text or whatever i'm sure there's other factors as well __________________ Pornyhost - 100% free, real FTP, domain hosting, blazing fast servers, no dirty tricks! BANNERLESS ON WEEKENDS

03-17-2002, 05:06 PM	#5
tha_timinator Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands Posts: 590	+ on a erronious (?) connection the surfer will still see the what's it about, even if a few chunks don't load... if it's one pic and it doesn't load, the surfer will click close anyway. __________________ CELEBRITYSTART.COM

03-18-2002, 12:11 AM	#6
deluxe Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,434	For a number of reasons: animation is an important one and it loads faster. __________________ NO LOGO

03-18-2002, 12:23 AM	#7
^R3K^ Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: North Carolina Posts: 2,815	When it?s smaller images it weighs less, so the little men can carry it up to your monitor faster. On one big image it takes them longer to carry it up there because it?s so heavy. __________________ no business like ho business Http://www.natnet.com No Hype, Just Results

03-17-2002, 04:48 PM	#3
Pipecrew Master of Gfy.com Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 14,887	yeah mostly for faster loading

03-17-2002, 04:59 PM	#4
SetTheWorldonFire Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: California Posts: 7,444	Sliced images are way better than just one whole image. 2 reasons. 1. They're right, it loads faster. 2. You can optimize each slice for better quality.

03-18-2002, 12:26 AM	#8
mule Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: hamsterdam Posts: 6,085	LOL ^R3K^ __________________ Converting like a mofo

03-18-2002, 08:03 AM	#10
Amputate Your Head There can be only one Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Somewhere else Posts: 39,075	1. Gif animations combined with jpegs for better quality. 2. Url linking. 3. Infinate symetrical non-resolution dependent interface expansion. (Normally in one direction, 2 isn't uncommon, and I have made some that expand in 3, and of course, 4 is possible. 4. Ease of owner modification to things like, an image that needs to change frequently or text that must be changeable on the fly. 5. Loading times? yeah.. I suppose that's helped too. But not one of the most important reasons. __________________ SIG TOO BIG

03-18-2002, 12:16 PM	#12
AdultWire Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Toronto, ON Posts: 962	So the "no thanks, I am a waste of your bandwidth, send me to popup hell" button loads faster. __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

03-18-2002, 01:58 PM	#14
Ludedude Suck it! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Who wants to know? Posts: 4,432	Actually, I'm not sure the slices load faster. There is a lot more code and calls to the server in order to display a sliced image. In reality, I think they load slower than a single image displaying the same thing. However, and it's been said up there ^ by the master, it gives you a shitload more flexibility if you need to optimize or change something. __________________

03-18-2002, 02:46 PM	#15
Chris R Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 1,151	Ok - I got everything except: "3. Infinate symetrical non-resolution dependent interface expansion. (Normally in one direction, 2 isn't uncommon, and I have made some that expand in 3, and of course, 4 is possible. " Does this have anything to do with time travel? Of course 4 is possible?!? Am I the only one that didn't get that Does it REALLY load faster - or just appear bit by bit to LOOK faster. I thought maybe it loaded faster - if the web took image chunks kind of like hard drives have little slices that go unused. If you have a 32k block on your hard drive and it uses 4k - it still takes up 32k. Wasn't sure if this was why it was done, but it appears not to be. If I have a 100k image - that is split into 10 10 k images - will the FINAL 10k piece load faster than the entire 100K image - or just a tiny bit slower, because of the extra html? Again - just curious - as I see this being used on even small (500 x 300) graphics and even smaller (google was using it on their main page for about a month - but then switched back) They are still using it on the results page: http://www.google.com/images/res0.gif http://www.google.com/images/res1.gif http://www.google.com/images/res2.gif

03-18-2002, 03:40 PM	#17
Chris R Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 1,151	Ah - I get it now. Thanks. When you are feeling better - still send me that quote

03-18-2002, 04:43 PM	#22
TaDoW Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Where It Rains Posts: 3,875	to give you an example, I was playing around with an extremely graphic front end of DormAngels a while back ... as one optimized .gif file it was about 190Kb, after chopping it up and optimizing each file, changing some .gifs to .jpg, etc. .. I got it down to about 80Kb __________________ -TaDoW I've Upped My Standards, Up Yours!

03-18-2002, 05:33 PM	#23
Amputate Your Head There can be only one Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Somewhere else Posts: 39,075	First of all, you need to know what you're working with. Number one: Use freakin' jpeg over gif when you don't need animation. It's a lossy format, but it offers the best goddamned clarity you're gonna get for the web. From there it's just a matter of the compression you choose. Number two: If you have no other need for a precise slice formula, AND you're bent on getting your logo or something up as fast as possible for the surfer, then yes... slice it out or separate it or use progressive compression so it loads first/faster. But as a collection of slices as a whole, it's not going to load your page any faster than one big ass image.... compression percentages do that. Do you slice your Large images that are linked from your thumbs? If they load faster sliced then why not? Because they don't. It's pointless. It's not magic people.... bust out your calculators and crunch the numbers.... the sizing formulas are not that complex. __________________ SIG TOO BIG

03-18-2002, 05:45 PM	#24
Amputate Your Head There can be only one Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Somewhere else Posts: 39,075	If any of you ever get the opportunity to attend an Adobe seminar.... DO IT! Fuck whatever it costs, and do it.... those people seriously know their shit when it comes to graphics.... take notes..... and listen to every fucking word..... you won;t regret it. The last one I was able to go to was back in '98 I think..... awesome fucking people.... __________________ SIG TOO BIG