I am trying to implement a full screen responsive image solution with the following loose requirements
0-600px > displays small image
601-900px > displays medium image
901-2000px > displays large image
After a bit of digging, I decided to work with the dimensions for:
iphone 6 > 414x736
ipad > 768x1024
I created separate images for each screen size (art direction purposes) and used the following srcset code
<img src="/assets/images/414X736/artGallery.jpg"
srcset="/assets/images/414X736/artGallery.jpg 414w,
/assets/images/768x1024/artGallery.jpg 768w,
/assets/images/1920x1080/artGallery.jpg 1920w">
The images have the following CSS (so it behaves like background:cover)
img {
display:block;
height:100vh;
width:100vw;
object-fit:cover;
}
I sized my desktop monitor small, and resized until full screen, the images where substituted at the right place
However, on my phones and tablets, it consistently showed the 1920 image
Ideally, I would like to substitue the images when scaling the browser window from small to large and large to small
My understanding of srcset is that once it's loaded the largest image, it doesn't load smaller ones
Help and suggestions appreciated
If you want to make some sort of Art Direction, you need to use <picture> instead of srcset-w.
By the way, your code misses a sizes attribute, which is mandatory if you use the srcset attribute with w descriptors.
Related
I've been working on a new responsive website design and I have a gallery containing a grid of images which when the browser viewport is 768px or above spans 4 columns wide (so each image is about 25% of the viewport). Anything 767px or lower is only 1 column wide (making it full width at lesser resolutions).
The images at desktop size (over 768px) should be 220px wide (4 image columns).
Between 480px and 767px should be upto 420px wide (1 image column).
And mobile size (under 479px) should be upto 260px wide (1 image column).
I have three sources for each image. 220px, 260px and 420px.
As you can see from the above, the sizes don't follow the normal conventions of the smaller the viewport the smaller the image, so I've been researching and trying various options.
Following suggestions, I've been using Google Chrome in incognito mode and also inprivate browsing for internet explorer, with the browser viewports started small before loading the page, etc... to ensure any changes I've been making get updated.
The current code I've come to is the closest I've got to making it work and it is following an answer to someone's query (similar to mine) here on stack overflow. However, when trying to implement it I can't seem to get the browser to load the right images still, it always loads the larger 420px wide image.
my code is currently like so:
<img sizes="(min-width: 767px) 420px, 100vm"
srcset="images/thumbs/image_420.jpg 420w,
images/thumbs/image_260.jpg 260w,
images/thumbs/image_220.jpg 220w"
src="images/thumbs/image_220.jpg"
alt="example image"
/>
A second query whilst I'm on the subject. Would it be best to set the default img src in my scenario to the 260px image? As this would cover both desktop and mobile browsers in the event the srcset isn't understood and only the middle sized viewport (460-767px) would suffer. Or is it always best to set the default image to the smallest size?
Any suggestions would be appreciated, thank you.
-- EDIT --
Just a quick update, I thought I'd logically figured it out yesterday but it didn't work so I'm not sure I still understand the whole concept of the calculations. My latest edit looks like so:
<img sizes="(min-width: 460px) 420px, (min-width: 768px) 220px, 100vm"
srcset="images/thumbs/image_420.jpg 420w,
images/thumbs/image_260.jpg 260w,
images/thumbs/image_220.jpg 220w"
src="images/thumbs/image_260.jpg"
alt="example image"
/>
So in my mind I think that the sizes section I've listed states... if viewport is at least 460px then use the 420px image, else if viewport is at least 768px use the 260px image. Then the last 100vm means otherwise use whichever is best at full viewport width.
I've also amended the default file to be the 260px file as this fits most of the viewport sizes if something hasn't been recognised.
However, the above edit still loads only the 420px image.
Any suggestions would be very appreciated. Even if its just to correct my logic!
sizes is evaluated left-to-right. So the order is important. If the viewport is 1000px, then the first media condition (min-width: 460px) will match, and so that size 420px is chosen, and the rest of the sizes attribute is not evaluated at all.
Also, the unit should be vw, not vm.
So it should be:
<img sizes="(min-width: 768px) 220px, (min-width: 460px) 420px, 100vw"
srcset="images/thumbs/image_420.jpg 420w,
images/thumbs/image_260.jpg 260w,
images/thumbs/image_220.jpg 220w"
src="images/thumbs/image_260.jpg"
alt="example image"
/>
As for your second query, technically you can choose any image you like (even one not listed in srcset), but your reasoning makes sense to me. The only thing I would recommend is to put your chosen src image first in srcset, because older WebKit with partial x-only srcset implementation will pick the first item when it doesn't understand the descriptors.
I have a webpage with different images of different proportions. I want to display in the best format for different devices: desktop, tablet, smartphone, etc.
Is it best to use CSS3 #media (mx-width: ** px ) or jQuery $( window ).resize(function() and $( document ).ready(function() { with a change in the size of the image?
The last step works very well and does not require to set a lot of different media sizes as in the case of CSS3, but if Javascript is disabled it will not work.
Basically, I want the images to be responsive, but not with re-scaling of the screen of the device, which is what I get with the Javascript code, but offering the full width of the container div when the page and images are displayed in a smartphone. I think that the approach would involve PHP code to get the Client data ( $_SERVER['USER_AGENT'] ) because don't want images to be too big to go outside the screen, and when using a smartphone I don't want the images to be too small to be seen, and here I have the problem of screen resolutio: the pixels of the image can be 1200 px, but it is shown very small because of screen pixel density or resolution.
The best approach these days is using a technique called "responsive image sizes" along with good old CSS to handle image scaling on devices with similar screen sizes.
Using 'resize' event to manipulate the DOM with jQuery is a staging way to bad performance and bad user experience.
The core idea is to load smaller images on smaller screens and down-scale them in browser if image is bigger than required, using:
img {
display: block;
/* You should never upscale raster images in browser */
max-width: 100%;
height: auto;
}
Here is a good article, that covers the concept in details: Responsive Images in Practice
I would recommend checking out lazysizes, it implements lazy-loading as a bonus.
This is how you use it in your markup:
<img
data-sizes="auto"
data-src="image2.jpg"
data-srcset="image1.jpg 300w,
image2.jpg 600w,
image3.jpg 900w" class="lazyload" />
I am making a game sorta like cookie clicker, and I want the images to look 8 bit. I use a macbook pro retina, which has four pixels for every one pixel on a normal screen. On Chrome and Safari, instead of each pixel being represented by 2x2 pixels, I get a bunch of blurry blobs... I don't have this problem on FireFox. There's this one website called pixeljoint.com that is made for pixel art, and I don't have the blurry problem there. Whenever I open one of the images from PixelJoint in a new tab, the image goes back to blurry. I heard that the problem is that the images are scaled before they are displayed on chrome and safari, but I'm not too sure.
Here are two screenshots to show what I'm talking about:
I would also like to point out that the images are normal .gif files.
I am aware that you can convert a gif file to an svg with this link
and an svg file looks fine on retina.
All I want to know is how PixelJoint makes the pixels look so smooth.
I figured it out, you need to use CSS!
<style>
img {image-rendering: optimizeSpeed;image-rendering: -moz-crisp-edges;image-rendering: -webkit-optimize-contrast;image-rendering: optimize-contrast;image-rendering: pixelated; -ms-interpolation-mode: nearest-neighbor; }
</style>
I found this in the source code, so I guess this is how PixelJoint does it.
We have a sprite of many icons which is 10564px x 80px. The icons are arranged horizontally.
In every other browser except IE10 the icons/images show up when being used as background images for tags with specific CSS to apply the relevant position.
When viewed in IE10 they do not show up at all and actually when you try to view the png file directly from the URL in IE10 it doesn't show either.
Any ideas?
After extensive testing, it turns out it's a limitation on the width of the PNG canvas and IE10.
PNG images would work and can be viewed right up until 8000px wide but no more than that, after that they just don't render.
After more testing it's related to whether or not they are transparent. PNGs with transparency just don't show at all whereas images without transparency show as a black block (canvas).
Whether or not MS will fix this remains to be seen... we live in hope!
The fix for us is to reduce the width of our sprite to 8000px and have two or more rows of icons/images well spaced out.
The fixes is only to separate the each individual image as single with minimum size, which will be less than 8000px wide;
I have a Content Slider (All-in-one-banner sort of) on the home page of my website.
Every time this banner slides onto the next image in the queue, the other images (png format) on my page are getting pixelated. Especially it happens in Chrome.
Images and Icons such as the logos, icons used for navigation, etc... - they get pixelated when a new slide changes on the banner.
Please help me.
Demo link (Open in chrome):
When the slides in the banner change, Look at the logo on the top and the logos to the right, and also the profile pics below,: indiaemerge.com/ieys2013
The solution I could figure out is that one should NOT use an image with large dimensions.
For example: I was trying to use an image of size 800px X 400px to fit it into a division of 200px X 50px. Because of this the image was getting distorted when slides would change.
I reduced the dimensions and resolution of the image to match the target division's dimensions and it worked.
Another way to fix this is to use an svg image file.
So the lesson to be learnt here is that always try to use an image (in case it is png or jpg) whose size meets your requirement as precisely as possible. If it is an svg image file then there won't be any problem.