SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    SitePoint Member ralph_bacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Milton Keynes, UK
    Posts
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Anybody get the LOWSRC attribute to work in IE6?

    I thought I was covered by adding in a LOWSRC attribute to my IMG. It's supposed to make the browser load your low resolution image first, then the rest of the page, then the high(er) resolution image you specify in the SRC parameter.

    Except IE6 ignores it and just leaves a blank space for a bit, then down loads the high res image only.

    Netscape honours this (apparently, I don't use NS nor code for it) as it has just 4% of all users according to my work's server stats.

    Anybody know if this is just a bug in IE6 or is IE all versions? You can test it on any page in the http://www.mousemat.f2s.com/BirdsandGarden/index.php series. The banner loads after an appreciable delay on a 56K dial up, instead of displaying a 99% compressed jpeg almost immediately!

    Best Regards.

    "There are only 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't".

  2. #2
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy blufive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    853
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    lowsrc appears to be an old Netscape-proprietary extension to HTML. It's probably not supported in any non-netscape browsers.

    Given the standards-oriented drive of Netscape 6/7, I doubt that those versions support it, either (certainly, I'm not seeing it in action here in the Gecko-powered Mozilla Firebird - but I'm on broadband, so it's difficult to tell ).

    In summary, I'd say: don't bother, it only appears to be supported by a few, horribly obsolete, browsers.

  3. #3
    ♪♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪♪ ♪ ♪♪ Markdidj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bournemouth, South UK
    Posts
    1,551
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't understand why this would be of any use really, as it would take extra time to load. I would use thumbnails, but if you want to do something like this you could use an onload pic change......
    Code:
    <img src="firstImage.jpg" onload="this.src='secondImage.jpg'">
    which would have the same effect.......
    LiveScript: Putting the "Live" Back into JavaScript
    if live output_as_javascript else output_as_html end if

  4. #4
    Robert Wellock silver trophybronze trophy xhtmlcoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In the olden days of Netscape 3.x and when dialup 33 baud modems were cutting edge it may have been useful but in today's world its is a pointless exercise in either case the user would probably disable images if they were on an extremely slow connection.

  5. #5
    SitePoint Member ralph_bacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Milton Keynes, UK
    Posts
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thanks guys, I'll adjust the size of my jpegs

    I thought it was too good to be true.

    The problem is: when I design on my broadband 512k connection, it's all too easy to forget what it was like on a so-called 56K connection (I could never connect beyond 44k and that was on a good day). So a picture (be it jpg, gif, whatever) that downloads in a flash on broadband might take more than a few seconds on such a crummy connection.

    I'll revisit the images on my site with a view to make them smaller overall (or provide thumbnails with a "Click here to enlarge" type link). That way I satisfy all my audience (with download speed, if not the content ;-)

    Damn! I thought that LOWSRC would be the answer!
    Ralph

    "There are only 10 types of people in the world: those that understand binary and those that don't"

  6. #6
    ♪♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪♪ ♪ ♪♪ Markdidj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bournemouth, South UK
    Posts
    1,551
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You could use the onload method just to change an image for broadband use only.

    with something like this ( not sure of timing as I don't have broadband )
    Code:
    <script>
    var timer=0;
    time=setInterval("timer++;if(timer==10) clearInterval(time)",1000)
    </script>
    <img src="slimBand.gif" onload="if(timer<10) this.src='broadBand.gif'">
    which would only load broadBand.gif if slimBand.gif loaded within 10 seconds
    LiveScript: Putting the "Live" Back into JavaScript
    if live output_as_javascript else output_as_html end if

  7. #7
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy blufive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    853
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    With the right graphics software, it should be possible to produce interlaced or progressively-loading versions of images, so that users get a low-res version of the image quickly, which then sharpens up. Might make the image file bigger though.

  8. #8
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Markdidj
    You could use the onload method just to change an image for broadband use only.

    with something like this ( not sure of timing as I don't have broadband )
    Code:
    <script>
    var timer=0;
    time=setInterval("timer++;if(timer==10) clearInterval(time)",1000)
    </script>
    <img src="slimBand.gif" onload="if(timer<10) this.src='broadBand.gif'">
    which would only load broadBand.gif if slimBand.gif loaded within 10 seconds
    meaning that if the user has javascript turned off, they'll be punished by only getting the low quality version...
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  9. #9
    ♪♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪♪ ♪ ♪♪ Markdidj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bournemouth, South UK
    Posts
    1,551
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think you would use 2 good pictures if this function was useful, just low and high quality, 16 color gif or 256 color. People with js off probably expect a few sites to be of lesser quality. It was just a suggestion, and depends entirely on the programmers needs.
    LiveScript: Putting the "Live" Back into JavaScript
    if live output_as_javascript else output_as_html end if

  10. #10
    ♪♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪♪ ♪ ♪♪ Markdidj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bournemouth, South UK
    Posts
    1,551
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ralph, the attribute does exist in IE6,

    Code:
    <img>
    <script>
    thisTag=document.getElementsByTagName("img")[0];
    thisTagAttributes=thisTag.attributes;
    thisTagAttributesCount=thisTagAttributes.length;
    for(j=0;j<thisTagAttributesCount;j++){
    document.write(thisTagAttributes[j].nodeName+"="+thisTagAttributes[j].nodeValue+" ")}
    </script>
    have you tried small case lettering?
    LiveScript: Putting the "Live" Back into JavaScript
    if live output_as_javascript else output_as_html end if

  11. #11
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy blufive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    853
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just because the attribute exists in the DOM, doesn't mean you can access it via HTML.

  12. #12
    SitePoint Member ralph_bacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Milton Keynes, UK
    Posts
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    I found a workaround that doesn't require LOWSRC

    Yes, the attribute is present in IE alright, it just doesn't honour it. Even more odd, if you only specify a lowsrc (no main src) then it will display the image - but the src attribute seems to override the lowsrc parameter.

    Anyway, my workaround is simply to slice and dice the image (which I use as a banner image across all the pages in this part of my site) which according to many people speeds up (at least subjectively!) the download of the image. Once downloaded it will then be instantaneous on all subsequent pages due to the caching.

    Incidentally, a bit off point, I recommend the Avant browser which is a tabbed wrap-around for IE. Very useful. Freeware too! You can find it at http://www.avantbrowser.com/ and, no, I don't have any connection with it (other than as a user)!
    Ralph

    "There are only 10 types of people in the world: those that understand binary and those that don't"

  13. #13
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ralph_bacon
    Anyway, my workaround is simply to slice and dice the image (which I use as a banner image across all the pages in this part of my site) which according to many people speeds up (at least subjectively!)
    yes, that's one of those things which - i believe - are purely subjective. you're replacing a single server request with a series of requests. additionally - if i'm not mistaken - the way file transfers between server and client happen is that initially the server will be quite conservative in the bandwidth they use, serving up images etc quite slowly, and start speeding up the delivery more and more as the transfer progresses...meaning altogether that a single image should transfer a lot quicker than lots of individual ones.
    an option might be to look into interlaced (GIF) or progressive (JPEG) images, which should have a similar effect of at least starting to show something while it's loading...
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  14. #14
    Robert Wellock silver trophybronze trophy xhtmlcoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's catch-22 since there will be more requests for a sliced image though faster loading still could be achieved since each image itself will be smaller thus download/display faster.

    Since the file packets have to be read in frames and a larger file is more likely to take longer to acknowledge and the protocol would spend a greater time analyzing the single file than multiple files thus a single file would take longer to process.

    Conversely the sliced images in total would have a greater file size but since all requests will be processed more or less simultaneously the browser would be rendering content before the last image was called.

    Hence greater speed if sliced a little; progressive PNG is another option.

  15. #15
    ♪♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪♪ ♪ ♪♪ Markdidj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bournemouth, South UK
    Posts
    1,551
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The good thing about slicing the image IMO is the seperate parts will cache faster than a whole picture. So if the whole picture hasn't downloaded on the first page visited, the rest will appear on the second, rather than waiting for the whole pic again.
    LiveScript: Putting the "Live" Back into JavaScript
    if live output_as_javascript else output_as_html end if


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •