W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Multiple image files?

From: Aaron Grogg <aarontgrogg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:29:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMZSRECdSa2msDxO1zJRub0XBzDQyr8Pu7BTv_6Gi8qxtKsRaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Johnna Nonboe <johnna@nonboe.dk>
Cc: Eduardo Marques <ebmarques@gmail.com>, public-respimg@w3.org
well, you simply need as many images as you want to serve to your users,
right??  if you *don't* want to send the same image to a mobile phone
*and*a desktop browser, then you need at least two different images...
*how many* different images is completely up to you, your client, and your
user base.

to this end, the only real solution would be a new image format, one that
somehow knows the screen size it is being loaded into, then downloads and
displays the correct image for that scenario.  something like Yoav
discussed here:

or maybe in PS, when saving for the web, you could create the different
"cuts", which would be included in a single image's meta data, then
communication between the browser, the server, and the image could send
just what you want, based on that single scenario.

but i don't see *that *happening in my lifetime...


*Aaron T. Grogg
*website: http://aarontgrogg.com/*
*email: aarontgrogg@gmail.com
*twitter: @aarontgrogg
*skype: aarontgrogg*

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Johnna Nonboe <johnna@nonboe.dk> wrote:

> Hi Eduardo,
> You are absolutely right - I have pointed out this issue a long time ago
> in the forum. I know a lot of photographers with several thousansa of
> photos as well as many companies and private people who wouldn't use any
> time at all to convert their pictures into more sizes. Therefore the
> picture element is dead before it's even born. Only a few pro neerds
> (myself incl.) compared to the amount of pictures from 'ordinary' internet
> users will do the work as meant to.
> As I just wrote in another message: We need to use the interlaced pictures
> and let the browser decide how much to download for the actual screen.
> A massive pressure on the browser companies might be nessesary - but then
> we must press them to make it happen ;-)
> Johnna in Denmark
> (My English isn't perfect, either, but I guess you'll understand anyway).
> ----------------------------
> On 17/10/2013 18:16 "Eduardo Marques" <ebmarques@gmail.com><ebmarques@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Guys!
> English is not my natural language and I anticipate my excuses for
> something
> badly written or badly understood.
> I have been following all messages and so far did not see one saying: "To
> have more than ONE image file is senseless."
> If I am correct, then I am the first one saying that! :)
> Lets take an example? Lets say about a Real Estate Website importing
> Listings from RETS. It will have a MIN of 10,000 Listings (some, with more
> than 100,000 Listings). From my experience, I say each Listing have around
> 15 images. Each image have its correspondent thumbnail. Result: one RE
> Website with a MIN of 300,000 image files. That's a lot, huh? Well, I am
> used to see a lot of Websites with much more than that.
> Now I see the Picture Element Proposal:
> <picture alt="">
> <source media="(min-width: 45em)" srcset="large-1.jpg 1x,
> large-2.jpg 2x">
> <source media="(min-width: 18em)" srcset="med-1.jpg 1x, med-2.jpg
> 2x">
> <source srcset="small-1.jpg 1x, small-2.jpg 2x">
> <img src="small-1.jpg">
> </picture>
> This example require 6 "versions" of an image! IMO, senseless!
> I mean, the above RE Website would need a MIN of 1,800,000 image files!
> Would love to read your comments and sorry if I totally missed something!
> []s
> Eduardo Marques
> ebmarques@gmail.com
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 10:32:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:06:10 UTC