Does anyone bother with slicing images any more?

Photoshop feature seems to be obsolete already

[GuanoLad]

I've never seen the need for slicing images, and now we're in the age of broadband, larger page weights are becoming much more acceptable.

Have you ever seen (or currently see) the need for slicing large images?

[Maylin]

Yeah, I do. Not everybody is on broadband. I'm not. It's not even available where I'm staying right now. (I move a lot so this isn't always the case). If I didn't do work on the internet, it would be unlikely that I would bother getting broadband over dialup after I move... it's just a more expensive bill to pay and there's other things I need the money for. I might be an exception these days, but I wouldn't assume that all potential visitors are on a high speed connection. If a site takes a long time to load, unless I already know this site has something I can't get from anywhere else, I hit stop and go to another site.

Slicing allows me to compress parts of the image differently, so I still get a high quality looking image that loads fast. I'm very friendly toward dialup users because I'm one of them. So if the person I'm doing the site for likes lots of graphics, I slice as a compromise.

A totally different reason: I have a tv show site that I'm slicing right now because there is a certain "preview" graphic that is supposed to change on a regular basis for new episodes. This is worked into the site interface, and i need control over that individual square.

[edited by: Maylin at 3:24 am (utc) on May 11, 2004]

[jatar_k]

I do with every image, slice em small, optimize them as much as I can to get the highest quality at the smallest size.

If my page weights are tiny, they will be that much faster for broadband and dialup users alike.

Also, no need for me to take up all that bandwidth with big images.

[XtendScott]

I slice em but don't(ok rarely) use the generated HTML code with spacers and 1px tall images to define table column width on the leading table rows.

[benihana]

yep i slice them all the time, but generally optimise and save one by one, and never use the generate html feature.

[shahid]

You need to slice whenever you find the image size exceeding an optimum limit. Particularly in cases when a page layout is designed in photoshop.

[pageoneresults]

I slice only when needed. Image size (bytes) is what I'm concerned about. Selective optimization is also a big plus. Many times parts of a sliced image can be in .gif instead of .jpg.

I also make sure that I do not end up with oddball slices. Never slice a client logo if you don't have to. Never slice through text unless you have to. I follow a very strict set of guidelines when slicing. I want to make sure that the slices by themselves are understandable and that I haven't left someone with half a graphic link or whatever it may be.

[carolynf]

Using the generated code can actually result in sluggish transfers, because it creates an image tag for every little area on the screen.

[highman]

>Selective optimization is also a big plus

Yes indeed! very handy feature in fireworks, leave the eye catching part of an image crisp, compress any areas no 'so important'

[pageoneresults]

Because it creates an image tag for every little area on the screen.

Only if you are designing with tables. Since I utilize CSS and absolute positioning on main graphic navigational elements, I utilize the export as CSS function. I may end up with 4, 6 maybe 8 slices total. Here's a basic example...

External CSS File

div.top1{position:absolute;top:10px;left:10px;}
div.top2{position:absolute;top:20px;left:20px;}
div.top3{position:absolute;top:30px;left:30px;}
div.top4{position:absolute;top:40px;left:40px;}

HTML

<div class="top1">Slice 1</div>
<div class="top2">Slice 2</div>
<div class="top3">Slice 3</div>
<div class="top4">Slice 4</div>

[pixelkat]

lately, I've been using a lot of css to minimize the number of images I use. the rest I chop manually in pshop, as I have always done. and code manually as well. I don't trust any wysiwyg app generate code for me. too much garbage code.

kat