text or image

[Jocka]

I was having a debate with my boss earlier this week (which I lost). We are having another company come in and help a little since I'm one man and can't get this done in the time they need it (project information not important). So this company told my boss it would be better to have any text converted to images. Not text from the database, just text on the pages that isn't queried.

I argued that this may cause issues with the bandwidth. While text won't take near as much space or near as much time to load on a page, the images are still better and more professional, or so he argued. The idea that images make it look more professional is ignorant to me but he's the boss lol.

So two questions out of this little story.
1. What seems better to you? (as a programmer and designer) Text or images
2. Do images take alot of bandwidth or am I just assuming the worst?

[redbullmarky]

1) text, although in some cases, images WOULD look better in cases where a) the fonts are not "web safe" or b) the font needs a special kinda look which could only be achieved by using an image. otherwise - text with a websafe (or relatively websafe family of) font would mean that anyone could easily change the content without loading up a graphics package. also, as far as accessiblity/search engines go, text is always gonna come up trumps here.
2) yes and no. you can get the image to be virtutally negligable in terms of bandwidth, etc - BUT (and someone may need to correct me here) - an image will be AT LEAST a several hundred bytes for any form of image. for text on the other hand, providing the user has the font installed on their computer, its gonna be the standard 1 byte per letter scenario. i had a play with Fireworks, and the best i could get a 2 colour (black+white) image to, containing 10 chars, was about 455 bytes. in text form, that costs you 10 bytes. considering the amount of people using PDA's and mobiles these days, assuming that end users have enough speed is too much of an assumption.

hope that helps
Mark

[Jocka]

Yea and speed issues lol. I meant to mention that. You can't assume everyone has dsl, cable, or some kind of t1 connection. Some people still use dial-up (i did for a while). Dial-up takes FOREVER to load pages with images all over it.

None of the fonts are unique. Just basic fonts (arial I think).  And could you elaborate on "text is always gonna come up trumps here" .. i tried to understand but i'm slow today.. :(

[redbullmarky]

sure...google/msn, etc are bots. bots can read text, but not so well images. sure, there's always the good ol' image "alt" tags, but text is better for general all round bot-friendliness.

[Jocka]

alright I see now. So you think it would be best to leave at least SOME text. Because he wants anything that doesn't come from the database to be in image form.

The company that is doing this software says if we don't convert everything by monday then they'll have to charge extra to do it, although we don't really want it that way. I told my boss as soon as he told me to tell them *INSERT PROFANITY HERE*.

I'm just going to convert it but I'm sure if I go to him with this on monday then he'll listen a little more.

[AndyB]

[quote]So this company told my boss it would be better to have any text converted to images[/quote]

A: Fire the company. Talk to the boss. Ask exactly how a search engine will index a page with no content? And where do you think it'll show up in the page rankings when any decent search system will ascribe it as having zero importance (as it contains nothing)?

-- OR --

B: Ask the boss for a raise. S/he obviously has more money than sense.

[Jocka]

lol i've tried both.

When they told him this, like I said, I basically lost my mind over it. Started cussing at my boss.. probably not the best thing I could do. Anyway, I told him we SERIOUSLY didn't need to mess with these people. Not only are they trying to tell US how to do the site but they claim that they can do this within 2 weeks. Now I don't want to throw all the details out there but let's put it this way, there was a bid on it on another site and the best bid said at least 2 months to get most of the basics done. As soon as I heard the 2 weeks, I said "NO!". This tells me they have something they already used and that's pretty much avoiding the entire point of trying to pay someone for a unique site.

[phpPunk]

In a purely business sense, aesthetics are *everything* and way more important than functionality, a business is about branding not about technicalities.

1) An image may have anti-aliasing, text is rendered by the browser...if that feature is disabled...text looks GROSS!!!
2) An Image is consisten across the board - same reasons as above.
3) A properly used/optimized image will take *alot* more space than text, but not enough to be a significant factor is choosing bettwen one or the other.
4) Text is SEO/Friendly an Image on it's own is nothing but bytes. You need to use ALT attributes, etc...
5) Images are difficult to convert on the fly (say for multi-language support) and *will* drive up your long term maintenance costs.

I vote images when I can absolutely get away with it, which is typically the norm.

Sorry man, I agree with your boss man :)

[Jocka]

Well I'm going to start putting text on the "alt" but I still prefer text for search engines.

It seems kind of ridiculous to spend all that time on creating the images when its already there in text.

"In a purely business sense, aesthetics are *everything* and way more important than functionality.." Out of every project I've done, it was functionality first usually. I just got my foot in the door at this company though (not a web company obviously) and they are far more highly concerned with the look than functionality. My supervisor wants functionality. However the President of the company, vice president, sales reps, telemarketers, receptionist, etc.. are always complaining about the look. I try to explain that it needs to work before it looks pretty but they disagree.

The way how I see it, the thing can look beautiful but if it doesn't do what it's supposed to then it pointless and a waste of time and money. However if it does do what it's supposed to and doesn't look perfect then people will go to it but it won't be 100% attractive yet. So to answer your comment there, I'm going to have to agree. No matter what I think or do, in a business sense, my bosses will ALWAYS prefer look to functionality.

[AndyB]

functionality vs looks ... when fixing an old car ... "If it won't go, chrome it"

eBay and Amazon are two of the most successful businesses online.  Both look like crap and function brilliantly.

[Daniel0]

[quote author=phpPunk link=topic=117037.msg477514#msg477514 date=1165063828]
In a purely business sense, aesthetics are *everything*
[/quote]

Marketing is important as well. If people cannot find you, then they will not buy from you. Search engines prefer text to images.

Another thing is accessibility... Text readers cannot read images (I think).

[url=http://www.sitepoint.com/article/surfing-web-eyes-closed]Tried Surfing The Web With Your Eyes Closed?[/url], [url=http://www.sitepoint.com]Sitepoint[/url]

I definitely vote for text.

[Jocka]

Well this is what I'm thinking.

After this company gets through doing their crap, I'm changing everything back to text. I'll explain this to my boss so he doesn't have to worry about them not doing the job. I mean, once we pay them, we don't have to deal with them again.

[Hypnos]

Images are fine for navigation, titles, and other large/stand-out objects. However, if you're talking about converting content to images, that's not practical. The reason the text looks better on an image is because of the anti-aliasing the image editor is doing to the text. That's fine for large text, and that is what it is intended for. But, when you start doing that to 8-12pt fonts, they just become blurry and harder to read (especially on a CRT monitor). Not to mention the issues of bandwidth and usability (ie: software for the blind).


On the other hand, if your boss is pushing this and no longer asking for your opinion, maybe you shouldn't be giving it. If that's what he/she wants, then that's what you should deliver.

[Jocka]

^ well i was agreeing with ur last comment there until I realized when everything goes bad, it's my a** on the line.

Monday I go back in and I'm going to explain to him the importance of NOT using images for text. Bandwidth, blurriness, etc. I really just need him to understand the issues he's going to set in the long run. I mean, he's planning a site for millions of members so bandwidth will get real bad after a few 1000 members start getting online daily. We just started the site up about 2 weeks ago and haven't done much but we already have 1000 members. Already used a gig of bandwidth alone this month (not a clue in hell how that happened, to be honest). .. it's a far more serious issue than he thinks it is and someone has to explain this to him before the site starts lagging.