[olegk]

That's horrible. Instead of drawing graphs on the client side, you're pushing insanely large number of images to the browser. It makes sense for google maps, not for graphs.

Plus you can't do any animation, changes to the graphs on the fly.

[sesqu]

Yes and no. It's a sensible way to represent very large pictures, and many interesting graphs are unreasonably large. Large interactive graphs can also strain an interactive viewer more than seadragon, result in incosistent views, and require some amount of interface and filter design.

On the flipside, interactivity and animation can be very welcome, and can work well even when offline.

[_delirium]

I've had bad luck trying to draw large graphs client-side, though I'm admittedly not an expert on optimizing such things. But once you're trying to push 10,000-node graphs to the client, browsers tend to explode. Much easier to rasterize them first and push image tiles.