peterpp Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Hi, I am working on a site which contains lot of images. I am using processwire with foundation. I am using sliders that contains images of width 1600px and height 605px. and size of image is between 600kb to 1mb. Below 480px resolution on mobile images looks pressed. Can i do something to show these images properly on mobile? Regards, Pravin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Gretsky Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 You should serve different images on smaller screens. It is even much more important performancewise. This should be accomplished via html/css. Look here to compare options. Processwire can help you prepare different sizes for an image. Look for "resizing images" here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Gretsky Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 There are some new ways to do it. They may not be so good for old browsers though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joss Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Because of the powerful API allowing you to create sized versions on the fly which are then cached ( http://processwire.com/api/fieldtypes/images/ ) you can take advantage of swapping media using JQuery and media queries. Foundation 5 has a system built in for delivering dedicated content (including images and background images) based on media queries - http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/interchange.html However there is also http://responsejs.com/ which does the same thing and is standalone. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Gretsky Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Joss' advices can be easier to implement if you do not care about users with no javascript. If you do, you should try doing it with media queries alone as proposed in my posts above. Though polyfills for those media queries are still js . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joss Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I have to admit that I don't really take into account those who have javascript disabled (around 0.2%) I suspect that figure is misleading as it will include all those who disable for some ideological reason - from the marketing point of view, that grouping are not a very responsive target market for most clients Still, it is not as bad as one site I visited a few years ago - the site would not deliver the page I wanted because "I was using an OS by the devil Gates" I wonder how long that chaps face has been missing a nose..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterpp Posted July 17, 2014 Author Share Posted July 17, 2014 Thanx for suggestions.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now