Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    jj1
    jj1 is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    319
    Member #
    17546
    What would you say is the maximum no of images you should put in a css image gallery when considering the loading time? If the large image is - say - 500 x 350 px and the small image is not loaded separately (ie it is just a scaled down version of the large image), then would 20 images per page be OK or should this number be split onto 2 pages?
    Would appreciate any views.

  2.  

  3. #2
    Senior Member filburt1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Maryland, US
    Posts
    11,774
    Member #
    3
    Liked
    21 times
    It's completely dependent on the size of the image (KB), how the images are loaded, how fast your server's network connection is, and how fast your visitor's network connection is.

    Scaling the image down in HTML is atrocious; always provide a server-side processed thumbnail, cached or otherwise.
    filburt1, Web Design Forums.net founder
    Site of the Month contest: submit your site or vote for the winner!

  4. #3
    Senior Member aeroweb99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Port Huron, Michigan
    Posts
    1,037
    Member #
    16468
    Liked
    1 times
    Generally when you have a lot of images like that, the best concept, if possible, would be to make that page as simple as possible. What I mean by that is to not put a bunch of other objects, flash, or other items on the page. Now if you have these pics in order, say 2 on one line, 2 on the next and so on, they will load one at a time right down the page while the user looks at the first row.

    Are these just thumbs you are putting on the page? If so you have nothing to worry about really.

  5. #4
    jj1
    jj1 is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    319
    Member #
    17546
    Many thanks for your replies. I'm intending an image gallery with thumbnails down the left and a larger image (eg 500 x 350px) appearing on the right when the thumbnails are hovered over. There would be little else on the page other than the masthead image and the navigation. The customer has requested 20 photos.
    filburt1:
    Scaling the image down in HTML is atrocious;
    The larger 500 x 350px image will obviously be scaled down to that size before loading to the server - to do otherwise would be as you say "atrocious". However, the css image galleries I've been studying seem to use css to scale down the larger 500 x 350 image into the thumbnails - I'd assumed that this prevented having to load two separate iamges and so helped loading time??

  6. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2
    Member #
    19748
    Hi,

    I think images should not be more in your web site as if you add more images to your site then the loading time of web site will effect and in search engine it cosiders less loading time, so you can put images but it should be more.

    Thanks!!

  7. #6
    Senior Member filburt1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Maryland, US
    Posts
    11,774
    Member #
    3
    Liked
    21 times
    Quote Originally Posted by jj1
    The larger 500 x 350px image will obviously be scaled down to that size before loading to the server - to do otherwise would be as you say "atrocious". However, the css image galleries I've been studying seem to use css to scale down the larger 500 x 350 image into the thumbnails - I'd assumed that this prevented having to load two separate iamges and so helped loading time??
    The loading time would be reduced, but only compared to if you looked at every single picture in the gallery. Scaling the images down in HTML is analagous to simultaneously viewing every image in the gallery, whether you want to see each one or not.
    filburt1, Web Design Forums.net founder
    Site of the Month contest: submit your site or vote for the winner!

  8. #7
    jj1
    jj1 is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    319
    Member #
    17546
    filburt1 - Many thaks for replying again:
    The loading time would be reduced, but only compared to if you looked at every single picture in the gallery. Scaling the images down in HTML is analagous to simultaneously viewing every image in the gallery, whether you want to see each one or not.
    Are you saying that it would be better to load 20 thumbnail images AND 20 larger images for the image gallery? I thought that the fewer images you had to load, the fewer requests were made to the server and the faster the loading time????

  9. #8
    Senior Member aeroweb99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Port Huron, Michigan
    Posts
    1,037
    Member #
    16468
    Liked
    1 times
    What type of gallery are you going to use? You mentioned a css gallery so I would like to see what you are talking about. A css gallery would not involve JS so there wouldn't be any preloading. so basically you would have your thumbs load up, one at a time, and then the large image load when the user clicks on them. Is this what you are asking about. I'm getting confused as to why this is so confusing!

  10. #9
    jj1
    jj1 is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    319
    Member #
    17546
    aeroweb99 - I've actually just yesterday created a css gallery with 18 photos (I thought I'd try it and take a chance) at http://www.nurseryburystedmunds.co.u...uregallery.htm
    It seems to load OK on the machines I've got - although I'm aware that I need to optimise the graphics (reduce their size) once the customer finalises that these are the photos to use.
    I'm no expert in loading times - it's something I'm now just starting to look into more - but, from the reading I have done recently, it had seemed logical that it was better to load one large (eg 500px) photo per image and then let the CSS scale it to a thumbnail rather than one large (500px) photo AND one thumbnail per image???????

  11. #10
    Senior Member filburt1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Maryland, US
    Posts
    11,774
    Member #
    3
    Liked
    21 times
    Quote Originally Posted by jj1
    filburt1 - Many thaks for replying again:

    Are you saying that it would be better to load 20 thumbnail images AND 20 larger images for the image gallery? I thought that the fewer images you had to load, the fewer requests were made to the server and the faster the loading time????
    Load the 20 thumbnails, and then each time the user clicks an image, the bigger version of that image.
    filburt1, Web Design Forums.net founder
    Site of the Month contest: submit your site or vote for the winner!


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Remove Ads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:03 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Skin By: PurevB.com