Image/Tables, www.macisrael.com, resolution

>What are the benefits of doing an image this way?
>
>As far as I can see, the size of one single image is equal to the added
>parts of it being done this way (possible takes a bit longer to load as the
>browser configures the tables).
>
>I guess one can create a hyperlink from each image instead of image mapping
>the big image - and one could change a portion of the image quite easily.
>
>Apart from these are there benefits I am missing?

Not only can you create a link for each image
(which is faster than an image map), but you
can do mouseover effects that can't be achieved
with image maps.  Alts on the image pieces also
 help for blind or vision impaired users.

Thanks for the comments on www.macisrael.com!

������������������������������������������������������

My excuses...

1.  I'm going to redo that image in the top left corner.
That was what the client provided.

2.  The site is left justified for printing reasons.  Most
visitors would be interested in printing these pages.

������������������������������������������������������

Here's my take on the color/res. thing...

I have a friend who is the support tech for a large
school district.  He claims that all systems are at
800 x 600, 16-bit color (some higher).  I have
friends from different local colleges where the
default settings are at least 800 x 600 with
24-bit color (some higher res and color).  I know
one person who puts their system at 640 x 480
because of their vision.

Regardless, I still try to keep it under 640.  I usually
aim for 535 for printing reasons.  My pro design site,
www.ewdg.com is 350 wide!  I usually think it looks
better... especially at higher res..  It's sort of a
'contained complexity' thing.  I usually see sites that
span too far wide become too busy and poor on load
times.  I have designed some proportionate sites
(percentages on frames and tables as needed).

For color... I usually use browser safe colors where
it matters... text and background.  Images... well...
I do color reduction as much as possible.  If it loses
quality as an 8-bit (or less) GIF, I keep it at 24-bit
and go the JPG route.  I never do browser safe
indexing for color.  I only cut it down to 8-bit for
reasons of load time, and to remain in 16-bit color.
Most gamers I know are at 16-bit color, as most
Direct 3D and OpenGL games require a 16-bit
color mode.  Many people are at a higher res.,
but have to sacrifice color for that, due to their
video card limitations.

I really don't think that the majority of systems are as
crippled as people say they are.

-Steve

HWG: hwg-graphics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA