SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Are Images bad?

  1. #1
    That's Right. notepad_coder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    835
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Images, good or bad?

    I have made two versions of my site, one uses all images and one only uses four. I have been told I should start making all my layouts with images but then some people say too many images are bad. I personally like the one without images but I like the way heavy image sites look. What do you guys think is better, heavy or light image sites?
    Last edited by notepad_coder; May 1, 2002 at 23:38.
    - the lid is off the maple syrup again!

  2. #2
    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)
    That depends; in general if I surf with images turned-off I expect to see alt or title descriptions, so at least a site is navigational - Quite regularly believe it or not, I keep images disabled.

    However, I think the core theme is how fast is your visitors connection, when I surf it is mainly done on a T-1 thus I don't normally have to wait too long for most sites to load, if I were on dialup connection I certainly would get annoyed waiting for fluff images.

    Again it would depend upon what your sites target audience were, if you are graphics Design Company, you'd probably have images everywhere, if you were trying to aim at delivering textual content then one or two good images is more than enough.

    I think the URL you have posted looks very clean and gives me the information what I want without fuss or having to have images enabled just to read text.

    };-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/
    Last edited by xhtmlcoder; May 2, 2002 at 02:19.

  3. #3
    SitePoint Enthusiast Clampants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    35
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    RE: Are Images bad?

    I'm in the school of thought that there can be a happy medium between an image-intensive site and an image-free site.

    In my designs, I always lean towards one with fewer images, but that's about it. I find the trend of image-free sites (those sites crafted using CSS for all design elements) to be...well, quite boring to be honest. Many of the sites looks all-too-similar, and are lacking a certain graphic "punch" that I like to see. I'll admit that the speed of download and the "liquidity" of CSS-based layouts are really appealing, however.

    On the other hand, i'm not a big fan of huge images that have been sliced up in Fireworks or Imageready (or whatever) and are called a site. That kind of practice gets clunky, and can be painfully hard to edit (not to mention the download speeds).

    Well, those are just my opinions. I'm all for a gracefull use of images to spice up a page and enhance the display of information (not detract from it)...of course, always keeping in mind your audience and/or specifications. I guess I just try to keep in mind that if I can create a graphic element through other means (CSS or whatnot), i'll do it...if not, I just make sure that my images are optimized, small, and cool-looking

    Tim
    http://www.clampants.com | http://www.fivesevenfive.com

  4. #4
    Not a post-script error?!! guysmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Underneath the Earth w/ Krom (Canada)
    Posts
    787
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by xhtmlcoder
    in general if I surf with images turned-off I expect to see alt or title descriptions, so at least a site is navigational - Quite regularly believe it or not, I keep images disabled.
    I can't believe that. I'd go nuts if the web was void of visuals. I certainly wouldn't have gotten into web design.

    I guess it depends on your target:

    1) logical target - "all these images are slowing down my navigation"

    2) creative target - "it's hard for me to see this site as a unique entity of sorts when it has no imaging to set it apart from every other web site in the universe..."

    I think a good design needs at least some imaging...but make your graphics meaningful...not just fluff. Pictures can say things words cannot. Think of it as a different channel of communication.

  5. #5
    What? Maelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Whistler BC originally from Guelph Ontario
    Posts
    2,175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I like sites without graphics.
    I like sites with some graphics but not a whole page of graphics
    I hate ALL sites with too many graphics

    Simple and sweet but so true. Plain sites can look awesome and sometimes better then big and fancy sites. Sites with graphics to spice up the look, generally, look better because of the options given by graphics. Sites with too many graphics, I leave.
    Maelstrom Personal - Apparition Visions
    Development - PhP || Mysql || Zend || Devshed
    Unix - FreeBSD || FreeBsdForums || Man Pages
    They made me a sitepoint Mentor - Feel free to PM me or Email me and I will see if I can help.

  6. #6
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,617
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Images are fine with me, as long as they do not needlessly clutter the screen and cause long loading times.
    I believe every element on the screen should serve some sort of function.

  7. #7
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    39
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I decided not to use images because of down load time, it also means I am able to use them in the future.

  8. #8
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    245
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It really depends on the type of site you are designing for.

    If its a site serving text based information I would want it to load fast and not be slowed down by unnecessary graphics.

    If however its a comic fanzine website then i am going to want to see cartoons and i would be prepared to wait that little bit longer for them to download.

    Horses for courses as they say!!

    Qamar

  9. #9
    That's Right. notepad_coder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    835
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I can see like graphic design sites using images, but I hate the sites that are all images and that's it. I personally like sites with text information and withou a lot of images.It may be because I just don't like heavy image sites but to me they look ugly.
    - the lid is off the maple syrup again!

  10. #10
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    74
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    re

    I find graphics the ideal way to compliment a website

    Though I would agree that for some purposes images aren't neccessary.

    But my theory is that if you were to revieve a letter in the mail advertising a book store (per say)and it was printed on a piece of paper with a text colour and background color and maybe a plain coloured border- are you more likely to visit that bookstore than if they sent you out a full colour brochure with images of the books, Nice fancy title images etc.

    I find it the same with the web.

    I would never design a clients website without attractive graphics to compliment it, or just using css and no graphics.

  11. #11
    Currently Occupied; Till Sunda Andrew-J2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,475
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the image has to blend into the layout and scheme of the page if not it doesn't belong there or the layout/scheme needs to be altered

  12. #12
    SitePoint Guru moonman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Sea of Tranquility
    Posts
    696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think it depends on the site.

    I build a lot of sites for hotels (yawn), and for them, the pictures sell the hotel. If someone from another country wants to find a hotel, they'll not book one without seeing what it's like. So the pictures are an absolute must.

  13. #13
    SitePoint Addict jbradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    224
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    When using images, be sure to consider your users. Are your users most likely to all have good connections, or do their connection speeds differ widely? If you use a lot of images on your site, be sure to test the load time on systems other than your own. If they don't load well with a 56k, then perhaps you should reduce their size or reduce the number of images if you have to. Overall, as long as the images don't take an outrageous time to load or take up unnecessary space on your site, they should be fine. It is far better to have too few images rather than too many...at least your visitors will be more likely to stick around until your page finishes loading.

    Jason
    Jason Bradley
    Post your project and receive FREE bids from professionals!
    naSnap Freelance Marketplace

  14. #14
    SitePoint Columnist Skunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Lawrence, Kansas
    Posts
    2,066
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Personally I am of the opinion that for nearly ALL sites content and download speed are FAR more important than making it look impressive with lots of images. For proof look at google - ludicrously fast, very few images (although the design isn't too bad). If your site loads completely in under 10 seconds (the google front page takes a couple of seconds to load on a modem) your visitors will thank you for it. I would much rather visit well designed, slightly boring sites that load in an instant then top heavy graphic laden sites that are a work of art but take an age to load.

    www.scottandrew.com is an example of what I mean - very clean, professional design with only one image on the front page (a small photo). It loads fast and is full of excellent content, so I visit it daily.

  15. #15
    Posts rarely lloydi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Swindon UK
    Posts
    620
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Whatever approach you take, bear these points in mind:

    * Images will slow your site down, no two ways about it. If the slow-down is too much, it matters not how nice those images are - people will hit that back button

    * Some people will continue to load the site but switch off images (I do this often if things are taking too long). How does your site look with images disabled? Is it still usable?

    * Ensure all you images have alt attributes, and that those alt attributes are useful!
    Build Your Own Web Site the Right Way!
    A beginners' HTML/CSS book with web standards at its heart
    The Ultimate HTML Reference
    A complete reference, in glorious hardback

  16. #16
    . Ruchir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,863
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    well.. it depends ont the kind of site too. but use of images in a site is no harm uless it occupies much space. that'll take time to load. if it doesnt take much time to load, than images make ur page look interactive and cool. so theres nothing wrong in using em..
    Peace.


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
  •