Image Slices VS Image Maps

Why choose one over the other?

[chew]

I just wondered what the PRO's and CON's of image slices and image maps are. In earlier days, image maps used to be the norm, but now even static images are sliced instead of using a simple image map. Why is that?

This question came to mind when I looked at the new Yahoo page and noticed their using image maps.

[chew]

Actually... I see now why Yahoo used a map.. to draw around the heads of the musicians in pictures. So maybe the only good thing about image maps is that you can make link shaped as something other than a rectangle.

[Marcia]

>even static images are sliced instead of using a simple image map. Why is that?

It makes a difference with page loading time. Several small images will load more quickly than the time it takes for one large image to load.

[copongcopong]

With image map, you may create any shape as a link on a single image but if the image is quite big in file size, it would be better to slice them so that the image would appear to load faster and you may also add some image swap if you prefer.

[tbear]

I guess on top of page loading you also have various image links, which would be far easier for search engines to read than an image map.. :)

[mnw]

I'm not sure that SE spiders can follow image map links.
Does anyone know for certain, one way or the other?

[buckworks]

I did some research on that question a few weeks ago and the references I found were unanimous in saying that search engines can't (won't?) follow links in image maps.

Someone who wanted to trade links with me had her site's entire navigation in an image map. I turned down the link trade saying that the SEs would never find the links page, and she ended up redoing the navigation.

[WebGuerrilla]

Several small images will load more quickly than the time it takes for one large image to load.

I think they only appear to load quicker, If you have a 50k image and you chop it up into 10 pieces, it's still 50k worth of data.

The other plus of chopping them up is that you dramatically increase your alt text.

[4eyes]

The big advantage of slicing is that each slice can be saved at a different compression ratio (or using different number of colours for GIFs).

The slices of the image that can take a good squishing can be reduced in file size, the slices that require clear detail looking good.

[4eyes]

I also read somewhere that the browser takes additional time to render an image in slices.

ie, an unsliced image will render quicker than the same image sliced. The sliced image will just give the impression of loading quicker

Can anyone confirm this?

[korkus2000]

We had a similar discussion not to long ago.
[webmasterworld.com...]

I think it completely depends on the picture. Most pictures can be optimized to drop solid color areas for bgcolor attributes. This can increase load time and crunch file size.

I don't think Yahoo is a good example. A month ago their site looked like a fourth grader made it. They cleaned it up and I think it looks better, but they are trying to stay extremly backwards compatable. If I was in their shoes I would to.

[korkus2000]

ie, an unsliced image will render quicker than the same image sliced. The sliced image will just give the impression of loading quicker

Depends on the file size crunch and add html code. If I have a solid picture that is 50k and the slices and html equal 47k then the load isn't going to be that much different. I also have the problem of simultanious downloads of pictures. This is probably what you are refering to. So a sliced graphic needs to be about 95% smaller to make a difference.

[tbear]

I was just wondering (hopefully not wandering) wether if you sliced an image horizontally it would load like a venetian blind and you would get a broader first view of it than if it loaded just from the top. There-by not having to wait for it to fully load before moving on¿