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....

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

yeah mostly for faster loading

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.

+ 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.

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

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.

LOL ^R3K^

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

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.

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. :winkwink:

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

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... :smokin

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.

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

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. :thumbsup

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. :smokin

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

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.

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.

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? :thumbsup

The question was WHY is slicing used, not the validity of each use. :winkwink: I think if you have a straight JPEG that's large enough to need slicing, you're doing something wrong. :)

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

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. :thumbsup

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.... :thumbsup