Re: loading time for a "chopped" image
by 2Nerotik <2nerotik(at)nisa.net>
|
Date: |
Mon, 06 Dec 1999 09:58:40 -0800 |
To: |
hwg-graphics(at)hwg.org |
References: |
bgsgroup |
|
todo: View
Thread,
Original
|
|
PERCEPTION: Smaller images load faster than larger ones.
FACT: Smaller images (cut ups) DO load slower.
You are very right in that each individual image needs to be requested and thus
they load slower than a larger image.
The perception that they load faster comes in where the larger image is
shown as loading top down or progressive fade in, so person sees it as
being slow while the same image cut up has many pieces fading in or loading
so more of the picture on whole is being shown and while it is taking
longer to show the person perceives it as loading faster because they can
see more "realestate" of the picture.
At 11:10 AM 12/6/99 -0500, Kasia Whiteis wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have a question regarding the loading time of a graphics that has
>been chopped into smaller images, vs. one big image.
>It seems to me that smaller images would load faster, but on the other
>hand I know that each individual image has to be requested separately
>from the server, which probably adds loading time.
>
>So is it just an impression that smaller images load faster, is it
>true, or maybe it is quite the opposite?
>Can somebody shed some light on this for me?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Kasia Whiteis mailto:kasia(at)whiteis.com
>
>Q: What Do You Like?
>A: http://www.ILikeThat.com
>-> come see the most unique music collectibles on the net
>______________________________________________________________
.oOo.
|| Cats regard people as warm blooded furniture.
||
|| Addicted 2 Swing ---> http://www.nisa.net/~2nerotik/
|| Fontaholic ? ---> http://www.fontsanon.com
|| HTML Writers Guild ---> http://www.hwg.org
HWG: hwg-graphics mailing list archives,
maintained by Webmasters @ IWA