Preloading images?

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by Fabian, Oct 25, 2003.

  1. Fabian

    Fabian Guest

    var preload1 = new Image(); preload1.src = "/pic/yay.gif";
    var preload2 = new Image(); preload2.src = "/pic/nay.gif";

    The above is meant to preload image files, yes? Problem is, it doesnt
    seem to be doing so in practice. Any idea where Im going wrong? Could it
    be that things work differnetly when in an attached .js file?
    Fabian, Oct 25, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Yes, and depending on the (file) size of the image,
    it is a Bad Thing as explained a few days ago.
    How do you get that idea? Do you get any script errors?
    It is simply that at least on the Internet you cannot modify the user's
    cache settings and what you observe here is possibly what happens if they
    do not match what you assume.
    Depends on what you mean by `attached'.

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 25, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Fabian

    Fabian Guest

    The images in question at < 3kb each, and the page wont make sense if
    they dont get displayed.
    No errors I can tell anyway. Its at (amongst others) if you want
    to look. Since I have no idea where in the code a bug of this kind might
    reside, it seems pointless posting any in the group at this stage. The
    prime suspect was apparently the wrong one.
    Id have hoped I would at least be able to modify this particular user's
    cache settings to enable preloading.
    <script src="blah.js" language="GuavaJuice">

    That kind of attached. There is another way?
    Fabian, Oct 25, 2003
  4. Fabian

    Stephen Guest

    Hi there, and apologies if this is a rather long-winded answer...
    Because there's no code there to detect the error that's happening ...

    Its at Actually I found at

    (amongst others) if you want
    It's not a javascript problem...
    I do not believe the user's browser cache settings have anything to do
    with whether the images "preload"

    No. Don't believe so ...

    But here's what happened when I tried loading the "animals.html" page:

    1. Browser requests animals.html
    2. Server says 200 ok, here it is
    3. Browser sees it needs css.css & requests it
    4. Server says 200 ok, here it is
    5. Browser requests "favicon.ico"
    6. Server says 200 ok, here it is
    [ don't get bored yet ...]
    7. Browser sees it needs "game1.js" and requests it.
    8. Server says 200 ok, here it is:
    Note, your Apache server serves this as application/x-javascript.
    This is probably as ok as anything, but it may be more usual to serve it
    as text/javascript. Though this has nothing to do with the problem.

    [This is the interesting part:]
    9. Browser sees it needs yay.gif and requests it
    10. Server says 404, can't find it (!!)
    11. Browser sees it needs nay.gif and requests it
    12. Server says 404, can't find it (!!)

    Has nothing to do with cache; has to do with the server can't find the
    images to serve. They are being requested as /pic/yay.gif (or
    /pic/nay.gif) from

    When you call the checkAnswers() function, you construct the yay/nay
    image sources as


    That is, without the starting "/". In this case the images show. So the
    answer is that in your preload code you're trying to fetch the images
    from the wrong place.

    I think you can put an onerror event handler on the image preloads to
    detect the error:

    preload1 = new Image();
    preload1.onerror=function(){alert("No Preload-yay");};
    preload1.src = "/pic/yay.gif";

    ALthough that's not very pretty. And as you've coded the checkAnswers()
    function (with the correct image location) the problem fixes itself
    (even if image showing might not be as fast as you'd like).

    Stephen, Oct 25, 2003
  5. Fabian

    Fabian Guest

    I do my error checking mostly with the Mk I eyeball debugging system.
    For added error checking potential, I have two running at the same time.
    It is primitive, but it mostly works.
    As I said, it only *mostly* works :)
    ok, I am stupid. Thanks for finding the problem. A virtual rate of beer
    is on its way to you now ;)
    Fabian, Oct 25, 2003
  6. Fabian

    Jim Ley Guest

    No, it will depend on the HTTP headers sent with those gifs and user
    I think you should inform both the various W3 working groups who ares
    putting the behaviour into the actual mark-up languages, they seem
    happy that it is a good idea.

    Jim Ley, Oct 25, 2003
  7. Fabian

    Stephen Guest

    Didn't by any means intend to imply you're stupid... I make that same
    mistake far more than I'll admit in public :). You know, at least, that
    your initial observation was exactly right: the preload *wasn't* taking
    place ... And thanks for the beer!

    Stephen, Oct 25, 2003
  8. That's definitely true.
    But they actually have. What achieved by preloading is only that there is an
    Image object created and a resource is accessed by a HTTP request (if not on
    the local file system.) That resource is saved in the cache and therefore
    need not to be downloaded a second time if, and only if, it is then still in
    the cache, which speeds up the display. Although JavaScript is a common way
    to do this, you could also do the "preloading" by putting the image on a
    previous page and, if supported, even by prefetching the resource with HTML
    (`link' element) or CSS (`background-image' property).

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 25, 2003
  9. I also wrote that implicitely. The above is in fact *meant*
    to preload images. The result does not negate the intent.
    By putting the functionality into recommendations, it is by no means said
    that you should use that feature when not appropriate. It merely provides
    the possibility to use the feature. Unless there are no more analog modems,
    it seems at least questionable to use that particular feature on the Web,
    especially when done without regard to the amount of data to be transmitted.

    PointedEars, connected by a 56k modem
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 25, 2003
  10. That is acceptable to me as user of a 56k analog modem.
    See the problem? What if the user has disabled images? What if they use a
    user agent that cannot display images, let's say a text browser or a Braille
    line? The `alt' attribute is your friend. If that does not suffice, you have
    greater problems with your concept than that your images do not preload.
    No, forget about it. My cache is *my* cache.
    How dare you change what I find appropriate?
    `Attached' could have meant that the .js file is an attachment of an
    evil[tm] HTML e-mail and other causes of the problem would have had
    to be considered.

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 25, 2003
  11. Fabian

    Jim Ley Guest

    No, it's a side effect really....
    How strange, because of certain pecularities in your environment you
    choose to impose a behaviour on everyone - it would be trivial of you
    to block the preloading, and that would make much more sense all

    Jim Ley, Oct 25, 2003
  12. Fabian

    Fabian Guest


    Trust me, this is a complete and utter non-issue. This section is being
    written with Japanse schoolchildren in mind, particularly the school
    computer networks. The school computers in every school I have visited
    use Explorer 6 with all normal display options on. As for their home
    computers, lets just say that Japanese kids arent noted for thinking
    creatively. I can be fairly certain what their home set up is because it
    simply wouldnt occur to them that they can change the settings without
    permission from tech support. That goes double for their parents.

    If they are using a text browser with braille support, learning English
    would be the least of their problems for this hypothetical Japanese kid.

    If anything, the main useability problem is too much text and not enough
    Perhaps I was writing too subtlely. "This particular user" is a subtle
    way of referring to myself.
    Fabian, Oct 25, 2003
  13. Your sarcasm aside, I do not impose behaviours on everyone because of my
    needs. That I am currently using an analog modem (I had the opportunity to
    connect via a 10 MBit LAN until a month ago) emphasizes only that I do know
    of what I am writing about when asking to reconsider to use certain
    features. There are of course more than one user with an analog modem. What
    a Web author wants are visitors. Thus it is not wise to disregard the needs
    of *any* visitor if this can be prevented. If you read standards and (W3C)
    recommendations thourough, you find this attitude expressed in the features
    they describe.

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 25, 2003
  14. Fabian

    Jim Ley Guest

    So why suggest that other people stop using preloading, an important
    usability aid for a great number of people, because you're blessed
    with 28K or so connection I've often used 9.6K and shared 28k
    connection between 10 people or more. I just modified by
    browser/behaviour so as it didn't harm me, you're free to do the same.
    Preloading is a lot more relevant to low bandwidth users, as it
    ensures that the usability increase still works, by ensuring the
    materials are available. In high bandwidth situations, it's hardly
    relevant as the content comes down, but as I say - it's easy enough to

    Yes authors want visitors, and yes their site needs to be usable -
    preloading can provide that - obviously forcing large images etc. down
    peoples throats is bad, but that is wholly irrelevant to preloading.

    Jim Ley, Oct 25, 2003
  15. I have only suggested that they think about it before using it.
    That may be OK to you, but who of us is now imposing behaviors on others
    here when you write that it is therefore also OK to others? Do you really
    think that someone except of you will *ever* adjust their settings to fit
    for only *one* particular website? There are plenty of other websites out
    there! Besides, sometimes it is only possible for the administrator to
    change such settings, have you considered that?
    Since users pay for downloaded data as well as connection time I doubt
    they would appreciate it if their download or connection time quota is
    spoiled by downloading (a bunch of navigational) images they do not want
    because they do not need them (and vice-versa.) Multimedia experience is
    not everything, sometimes you are just looking for useful information.

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 25, 2003
  16. Fabian

    Jim Ley Guest

    That is not what you said in this thread.
    Neither of us... All web authoring is suggesting, suggesting
    something be preloaded can be important for usability, telling people
    not to do is it is not helpful.
    Where did I say anything about using images for navigation - that's
    most certainly a really bad idea, and I can fully agree with you that
    it is bad - but what's that got to do with preloading images, other
    than the fact some people misuse it in that way?

    Jim Ley, Oct 25, 2003
  17. Fabian

    Stephen Guest

    Actually, I stand by the statement I made, where "preload" is doing what
    the OP originally wrote about:


    This is based on my observations and is not simply an assertion.
    Pretty much ok, but for that "file system" part. The term "cache" is
    really a bit ambiguous: there is disk cache and memory cache. So the
    browser uses memory for storing some of its "stuff" -- and it is into
    memory that the "preloaded" images go; they may also get stored in disk
    cache. Even if I turn off disk caching the memory part still works. By
    my observation, this even works in Opera, where one can explicitly "turn
    off" memory caching.
    It is being in memory that makes rollovers work really fast. Even
    fetching a (disk)-cached copy could be too long. The point is to make
    rollovers appear instantaneous.

    Again, I do not believe there is any user browser cache setting that has
    anything to do with whether the images "preload".

    Of course, a clear, unambiguous example illustrating a user setting for
    browser cache that causes "preloads" to fail could change my mind on the

    Stephen, Oct 25, 2003
  18. Fabian

    Fabian Guest

    For Japanese schholchildren, my target audience, multimedia is king. A
    plain text site would have them fall asleep in seconds.
    Fabian, Oct 25, 2003
  19. Read again. I did not write that you must discard images.



    Your comb-like quoting (correct translation?) sucks. Alas I do not know
    a non-German tutorial/FAQ for Outlook Express (Google should provide one)
    but I suggest you use MorVer or OE-Tools to avoid that in the future as
    many people have before.
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 26, 2003
  20. Fabian

    Fabian Guest

    As I have no idea what comb-like quoting is, and as you are the first
    person ever to comment unfavourably on my quoting style, I think I shall
    pass on changing my modus operandi.
    Fabian, Oct 26, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
