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