slicing images? - Macromedia Dreamweaver

[brintonwhite webforumsuser@macromedia.com]

I'm doing a web course and have some self assesment questions to answer. The following question has me confused:

Which of the following statements constitutes an advantage of image slicing?

A. Reduced image size
B. Reduced image loading time
C. Increased image resolution
D. Increased image pixilation


I feel pretty sure it's not C or D but have seen both A and B said about image slicing on various web site tutorials.

Any help would be great.

thanks

[John Waller]

I'd say 30% A and 70% B :-)

A because slicing allows an image to be selectively compressed in some
software. In other words, some bits of the image (as appropriate) can be
saved as JPEGs and some bits may be better saved as GIF's.
If you're compressing the entire image as a JPG or GIF then I don't see any
advantage in slicing.

B because one of the primary benefits is to create the *perception* that the
image is downloading quicker because it renders on screen as the various
bits download instead of waiting for the entire thing to download before
seeing anything.

--
Regards

John Waller

[dreamworms webforumsuser@macromedia.com]

A. would be a simple answer because you slice the image, of course the image size will be reduced (absolutely logical) while B. would be a good answer because smaller image usually take a short time to load.




DREAMWORMS

[email]dreamwormslycos.co.uk[/email]
:: Let's cooperate to grow our portfolio ::

[Dan Vendel *GOF*]

"brintonwhite" [email]webforumsusermacromedia.com[/email] wrote:

> I'm doing a web course and have some self assesment questions to answer. The following question has me confused:
>
> Which of the following statements constitutes an advantage of image slicing?
>
> A. Reduced image size
> B. Reduced image loading time
> C. Increased image resolution
> D. Increased image pixilation

B. theoretically, since sliced images *can* (if connection parameters
allow) be downloaded in parallell packets.
However, IMHO the *true* advantage is that you can create a nice layout
with adjacent images in a nested table.
--
Dan Vendel - *GOF*
[url]http://www.vendel.info[/url]
Contact me directly by clicking here:
[url]http://contact.vendel.info[/url]
Formmail tutorial:
[url]http://www.vendel.info/tut/formmail.html[/url]
Nested table demonstration:
[url]http://www.vendel.info/tabletut/[/url]

[Lumper Dawgz]

> > I'm doing a web course and have some self assesment questions to answer.

> > The following question has me confused:
> >
> > Which of the following statements constitutes an advantage of image slicing?
> >
> > A. Reduced image size
> > B. Reduced image loading time
> > C. Increased image resolution
> > D. Increased image pixilation

>
> B. theoretically, since sliced images *can* (if connection parameters
> allow) be downloaded in parallell packets.

Another 'version' of the infamous urban legend regarding sliced images
makes its way around the web once again.

Unbelievable..................

And from a professional 'web de-zi-ner' no less!

[Al Sparber- PVII]

None of the above.

In fact, it can increase download times, as well as look downright ugly if
the images are not sliced in a perfectly symetrical manner.

--
Al Sparber - PVII
[url]http://www.projectseven.com[/url]
Dreamweaver Extensions - DesignPacks - Tutorials - Books
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The PVII Newsgroup | [url]news://forums.projectseven.com/pviiwebdev[/url]
The CSS Newsgroup | [url]news://forums.projectseven.com/css[/url]
---------------------------------------------------------------------



"brintonwhite" <webforumsusermacromedia.com> wrote in message
news:bejmgh$k5f$1forums.macromedia.com...

> I'm doing a web course and have some self assesment questions to answer.

The following question has me confused:

>
> Which of the following statements constitutes an advantage of image

slicing?

>
> A. Reduced image size
> B. Reduced image loading time
> C. Increased image resolution
> D. Increased image pixilation
>
>
> I feel pretty sure it's not C or D but have seen both A and B said about

image slicing on various web site tutorials.

>
> Any help would be great.
>
> thanks
>
>

[Gary White]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:57:19 -0400, "Al Sparber- PVII"
<thisaddressactuallyworks.com> wrote:

>None of the above.
>
>In fact, it can increase download times, as well as look downright ugly if
>the images are not sliced in a perfectly symetrical manner.

My thoughts exactly! It can give the *perception* of a faster download
since the user might see something happening, but that is only
perception and not reality.


Gary

[Al Sparber- PVII]

Try this tech note here:
[url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/fireworks/ts/doents/slicing_speed.htm[/url]

It's actually pretty unbiased.

--
Al Sparber - PVII
[url]http://www.projectseven.com[/url]
Dreamweaver Extensions - DesignPacks - Tutorials - Books
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The PVII Newsgroup | [url]news://forums.projectseven.com/pviiwebdev[/url]
The CSS Newsgroup | [url]news://forums.projectseven.com/css[/url]
---------------------------------------------------------------------



"brintonwhite" <webforumsusermacromedia.com> wrote in message
news:bekkuu$jq2$1forums.macromedia.com...

> Is this lumper refering to me? I'm certainly not a pro web designer, I

have not been doing the course for long. I posted the question because I did
not know the answer. Simple as that. I didn't even know there was a rumour,
and in fact I've never actually sliced an image - I've only just seen it in
the question I posted

>
>

[Alan Ames]

Removed by Administrator

[John Waller]

> None of the above.

So are there any advantages in slicing?

--
Regards

John Waller

[Al Sparber- PVII]

No. Not in my opinion. But I think a lot of people are confused about
slicing for the sake of slicing versus using the slice feature to create
discreet buttons or other images in programs like Fireworks or Photoshop.


"John Waller" <johnwpinnacleweb.com.au> wrote in message
news:bekntp$odp$1forums.macromedia.com...

> > None of the above.

>
> So are there any advantages in slicing?
>
> --
> Regards
>
> John Waller
>
>

[Shank Williams]

"dreamworms" <webforumsusermacromedia.com> wrote in message
news:berjg6$7h5$1forums.macromedia.com...

> Sorry Al, Gary but you've got it absolutely wrong. A group of small images

downloads more efficiently in a browser than one large image. You slice
image in order to divide it into smaller files to accelerate download time
or to assign different compression or file formats to various parts of an
image, particularly animations.

>
> Slicing is the process of cutting image into pieces, saving the individual

parts as image files, and writing an HTML doent that resembles the slices
on-screen. This increases the efficiency of displaying the images on the
browser by decreasing the download time.

>

Can you point to any evidence or proof that this is true?
I would like to know the facts about this. My intuition (hardly infallable)
tells me that the file sizes of many small images would total more than that
of one single image, due to the numerous headers needing to be downloaded,
and the increased html (tables) needed to display the images.
So how can this be faster?

> I'd say that i would take the advantage of slicing to give the visitor

idea of the image.

> The engineers who create the application surely have point to create

slicing command, we should appreciate and take the advantage of it.

>
>
> DREAMWORMS
> [url]http://www.siteatelier.com[/url]
> [email]dreamwormslycos.co.uk[/email]
>
> :: Let's cooperate to grow our portfolio ::

[Alan Ames]

browsers can fetch multiple files at one time.

so say a large image is cut into 4 images-
Even if the 4 images total slightly more file size than one large one- the
browser can do simultaneous downloads of the 4 images at the same time-
whereas the one single image is limited to the one request.

a lot depends on the person's connection speed of course. If their
connection is saturated it only goes so fast anyways

and how many angels are on that particular pinhead...

> Can you point to any evidence or proof that this is true?
> I would like to know the facts about this. My intuition (hardly infallable)
> tells me that the file sizes of many small images would total more than that
> of one single image, due to the numerous headers needing to be downloaded,
> and the increased html (tables) needed to display the images.
> So how can this be faster?

--
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer

[Al Sparber- PVII]

There is no logical reason to slice a perfectly good image into pieces
unless those pieces happen to be buttons of a navigation bar, for instance.
On a good day, a browser (modern ones) will be able to grab multiple files
simultaneously... but only so many, and only perhaps, and that still means
that the images will not come in in any predictable order. And everyone
seems to forget that browsers not only have to doownload image, they also
need to draw them and that drawing taxes the rendering engine... especially
on Mozilla browsers. Forget angels and pinheads, this topic is one where you
either get it, don't get it, or just want to split hairs.

--
Al Sparber - PVII
[url]http://www.projectseven.com[/url]
Dreamweaver Extensions - DesignPacks - Tutorials - Books
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The PVII Newsgroup | [url]news://forums.projectseven.com/pviiwebdev[/url]
The CSS Newsgroup | [url]news://forums.projectseven.com/css[/url]
---------------------------------------------------------------------



"Alan Ames" <bluformdude.com> wrote in message
news:BB388146.13C8F6%bluformdude.com...

> browsers can fetch multiple files at one time.
>
> so say a large image is cut into 4 images-
> Even if the 4 images total slightly more file size than one large one- the
> browser can do simultaneous downloads of the 4 images at the same time-
> whereas the one single image is limited to the one request.
>
> a lot depends on the person's connection speed of course. If their
> connection is saturated it only goes so fast anyways
>
> and how many angels are on that particular pinhead...
>

> > Can you point to any evidence or proof that this is true?
> > I would like to know the facts about this. My intuition (hardly

infallable)

> > tells me that the file sizes of many small images would total more than

that

> > of one single image, due to the numerous headers needing to be

downloaded,

> > and the increased html (tables) needed to display the images.
> > So how can this be faster?

>
> --
> Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
> Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer
>

[Al Sparber- PVII]

"Al Sparber- PVII" <thisaddressactuallyworks.com> wrote in message
news:bev4du$kbm$1forums.macromedia.com...

>Forget angels and pinheads, this topic is one where you
> either get it, don't get it, or just want to split hairs.

And I meant the royal "you" and not anyone in particualar :-)