Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : BG Images: Tranparent or BGC Color?
tonyh
03-25-2004, 03:19 PM
Hey Guys,
This may be an age old question, but should BG Images be designed with BG Color in mind or be transparent?
I'm asking because of CSS. Just because I've made my background: red doesn't necessarily mean that the page will appear red in every client. But using Transparent .gif often leaves hard coded jagged edges, although the image will appear on any background.
I've read the next solution would be Transparent .png, except that not all browsers support this file format. Any more info regarding .png?
The final solution would be to design the image with the same background color it is meant ao appear on. But as said if CSS isn't enabled you may have some odd looking images throughout your pages.
What's the solution?
Originally posted by tonyh
But using Transparent .gif often leaves hard coded jagged edges, although the image will appear on any background.
You can use a matting to smooth the edges, but it would still have some of the red on the outer edges of the image.
Originally posted by tonyh
I've read the next solution would be Transparent .png, except that not all browsers support this file format. Any more info regarding .png?
Mozilla supports PNGs fine, as far as I know. Internet Explorer handles them improperly, though, and I don't know how long PNGs have been supported. You should be able to find more information, along with a browser PNG support test, at the W3C (http://www.w3.org/).
Originally posted by tonyh
The final solution would be to design the image with the same background color it is meant ao appear on. But as said if CSS isn't enabled you may have some odd looking images throughout your pages.
Usually, that's what I do. I count on my users seeing the CSS, as the majority of the users out there see it and the background attribute is widely supported (obviously). The ones that don't see it, probably won't see the graphic either! :p
[J]ona
or take a look at shea's (http://mezzoblue.com/tests/png-support/) png series
tonyh
03-25-2004, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Jona
Usually, that's what I do. I count on my users seeing the CSS, as the majority of the users out there see it and the background attribute is widely supported (obviously). The ones that don't see it, probably won't see the graphic either! :p [/font]
[J]ona
Is that a fair assumption? Just because a browser isn't W3 compliant doesn't mean that it won't support images.
Originally posted by samij586
or take a look at shea's (http://mezzoblue.com/tests/png-support/) png series
I did thanx. Yep MS makess another screw up. Thus for the time being I don't think .png is a good alternative to .gif.
I guess the users will have to put up with some awkward imagery....
Seriously I'd say go with a colored background, or use matting. It's not a fair assumption, but it makes sense. Not too many people use browsers older than version 4.0, and the background property is supported in Netscape 4.x, I believe, so there aren't a vast amount of people that will be seeing the image without its background.
[J]ona
tonyh
03-26-2004, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Jona
Seriously I'd say go with a colored background, or use matting.
It's all good :D .
Actually that is what I meant by:
Originally posted by tonyh
I guess the users will have to put up with some awkward imagery....
I was trying to be sarcastic by saying "the images will look odd if background isn't supported, but the user will just have settle for it."
Thanx guys for your help.
Sarcasm is the greatest... Seriously. ;)
Happy to help in any way I can (or could).
[J]ona