One Solution To Responsive Images


Responsive images have been, and are, one of the hardest problems in responsive Web design right now. Until browser vendors have a native solution, we have to think on the fly and come up with our own solutions. “Retina” images are especially a challenge because if you have sized your layout with ems or percentages (as you should!), then you cannot be sure of the exact pixel dimensions of each image being displayed.

In this article, we’ll look at one solution to the problem that we implemented on our portfolio website at Etch, where you can see an early working version in the wild.

Requirements Link

We used a content-first approach on Etch. We knew we wanted to use a lot of images to quickly convey the atmosphere of the company. These would be accompanied by small snippets, or “soundbites,” of text.

The next decision was on image sizes and aspect ratios. To get maximum control over the design, we knew we needed maximum control over the images. We decided to use Instagram as the base for our imagery for the following reasons:

  • The aspect ratio is fixed.
  • Most employees here already use it.
  • Those lovely filters.

Instagram allows for a maximum image size of 600 pixels, so we now had our first set of content constraints to work with: images with a 1:1 aspect ratio, and a maximum image size of 600 × 600. Having constraints on the content side made the design process easier because they limited our options, thus forcing decisions.

When the content was completed, we began looking at the design. Again, to keep maximum control, we decided on an adaptive design style with fixed column sizes. We used grid block elements that match our maximum image size. Each grid block would either be 600 × 600 or 300 × 300, which also conveniently fit our rough plan of a minimum width of 320 pixels for the viewport on the website.

During the rest of the design process, we noticed that we needed two other image sizes: thumbnails at 100 × 100, and hero images that stretch the full width of the content (300, 600, 900, 1200, 1600, 1800). All images would also need to be “Retina” ready — or, to put it another way, compatible with displays with high pixel densities. This gave us the final set of requirements for a responsive images solution for the website:

  • Potential image widths (in pixels) of 100, 300, 600, 900, 1200, 1600, 1800
  • Retina ready
  • Must be crisp with minimal resizing (some people notice a drop in quality with even downsized images)

Having to resize that many images manually, even using a Photoshop script, seemed like too much work. Anything like that should be automated, so that you can focus on fun and interesting coding instead. Automation also removes the chance for human error, like forgetting to do it. The ideal solution would be for us to add an image file once and forget about it.

Common Solutions Link

Before going over our solution, let’s look at some common solutions currently being used. To keep up with currently popular methods and the work that the Web community is doing to find a solution to responsive images, head over to the W3C Responsive Images Community Group.

PICTURE ELEMENT LINK

First up, the picture element. While this doesn’t currently have native support and browser vendors are still deciding on picture versus srcset versus whatever else is up for discussion, we can use it with a polyfill.

<picture alt="description">
  <source src="small.jpg">
  <source src="medium.jpg" media="(min-width: 40em)">
  <source src="large.jpg" media="(min-width: 80em)">
</picture>

The picture element is great if you want to serve images with a different shape, focal point or other feature beyond just resizing. However, you’ll have to presize all of the different images to be ready to go straight in the HTML. This solution also couples HTML with media queries, and we know that coupling CSS to HTML is bad for maintenance. This solution also doesn’t cover high-definition displays

For this project, the picture element required too much configuration and manual creation and storage of the different image sizes and their file paths.

SRCSET LINK

Another popular solution, srcset, has recently been made available natively in some WebKit-based browsers. At the time of creating our plugin, this wasn’t available, and it looks like we’ll be waiting a while longer until cross-browser compatibility is good enough to use it without a JavaScript fallback. At the time of writing, srcset is usable only in the Chrome and Safari nightly builds.

<img src="fallback.jpg" srcset="small.jpg 640w 1x, small-hd.jpg 640w 2x, large.jpg 1x, large-hd.jpg 2x" alt="">

The snippet above shows srcset in use. Again, we see what essentially amounts to media queries embedded in HTML, which really bugs me. We’d also need to create different image sizes before runtime, which means either setting up a script or manually doing it, a tiresome job.

 

Continue…

Read the full article on Smashing Magazine

One Solution To Responsive Images

Responsive images have been, and are, one of the hardest problems in responsive Web design right now. Until browser vendors have a native solution, we have to think on the fly and come up with our own solutions. “Retina” images are especially a challenge because if you have sized your layout with ems or percentages (as you should!), then you cannot be sure of the exact pixel dimensions of each image being displayed.

In this article, we’ll look at one solution to the problem that we implemented on our portfolio website at Etch, where you can see an early working version in the wild.

Requirements Link

We used a content-first approach on Etch. We knew we wanted to use a lot of images to quickly convey the atmosphere of the company. These would be accompanied by small snippets, or “soundbites,” of text.

The next decision was on image sizes and aspect ratios. To get maximum control over the design, we knew we needed maximum control over the images. We decided to use Instagram as the base for our imagery for the following reasons:

  • The aspect ratio is fixed.
  • Most employees here already use it.
  • Those lovely filters.

Instagram allows for a maximum image size of 600 pixels, so we now had our first set of content constraints to work with: images with a 1:1 aspect ratio, and a maximum image size of 600 × 600. Having constraints on the content side made the design process easier because they limited our options, thus forcing decisions.

When the content was completed, we began looking at the design. Again, to keep maximum control, we decided on an adaptive design style with fixed column sizes. We used grid block elements that match our maximum image size. Each grid block would either be 600 × 600 or 300 × 300, which also conveniently fit our rough plan of a minimum width of 320 pixels for the viewport on the website.

During the rest of the design process, we noticed that we needed two other image sizes: thumbnails at 100 × 100, and hero images that stretch the full width of the content (300, 600, 900, 1200, 1600, 1800). All images would also need to be “Retina” ready — or, to put it another way, compatible with displays with high pixel densities. This gave us the final set of requirements for a responsive images solution for the website:

  • Potential image widths (in pixels) of 100, 300, 600, 900, 1200, 1600, 1800
  • Retina ready
  • Must be crisp with minimal resizing (some people notice a drop in quality with even downsized images)

Having to resize that many images manually, even using a Photoshop script, seemed like too much work. Anything like that should be automated, so that you can focus on fun and interesting coding instead. Automation also removes the chance for human error, like forgetting to do it. The ideal solution would be for us to add an image file once and forget about it.

Common Solutions Link

Before going over our solution, let’s look at some common solutions currently being used. To keep up with currently popular methods and the work that the Web community is doing to find a solution to responsive images, head over to the W3C Responsive Images Community Group.

PICTURE ELEMENT LINK

First up, the picture element. While this doesn’t currently have native support and browser vendors are still deciding on picture versus srcset versus whatever else is up for discussion, we can use it with a polyfill.

<picture alt="description">
  <source src="small.jpg">
  <source src="medium.jpg" media="(min-width: 40em)">
  <source src="large.jpg" media="(min-width: 80em)">
</picture>

The picture element is great if you want to serve images with a different shape, focal point or other feature beyond just resizing. However, you’ll have to presize all of the different images to be ready to go straight in the HTML. This solution also couples HTML with media queries, and we know that coupling CSS to HTML is bad for maintenance. This solution also doesn’t cover high-definition displays

For this project, the picture element required too much configuration and manual creation and storage of the different image sizes and their file paths.

SRCSET LINK

Another popular solution, srcset, has recently been made available natively in some WebKit-based browsers. At the time of creating our plugin, this wasn’t available, and it looks like we’ll be waiting a while longer until cross-browser compatibility is good enough to use it without a JavaScript fallback. At the time of writing, srcset is usable only in the Chrome and Safari nightly builds.

<img src="fallback.jpg" srcset="small.jpg 640w 1x, small-hd.jpg 640w 2x, large.jpg 1x, large-hd.jpg 2x" alt="">

The snippet above shows srcset in use. Again, we see what essentially amounts to media queries embedded in HTML, which really bugs me. We’d also need to create different image sizes before runtime, which means either setting up a script or manually doing it, a tiresome job.

 

Continue…

Read the full article on Smashing Magazine