[hunter2_]

You're probably thinking of CSS sprites, if you mean only displaying a certain portion of the image file at a time. An image map is when you display the whole image file as-is, but have different clickable links at different coordinates/dimensions.

The former is specifically for reducing requests, while the latter is more about UX.

[pcthrowaway]

For what it's worth, I recall the CSS sprite technique being referred to as image mapping too.

Sure, it's different from the <map> element (which is officially an image map, as you say).

But it's effectively mapping out the sections of a large image that you care about and then using CSS to display parts of it

[hunter2_]

Yeah, I vaguely recall some usage like that by the same crowd that also thinks an "anchor" is specifically a fragment link that brings you to a certain element on the same page, when in reality the word applies to all <a> tags. Sort of a casual understanding of HTML among non-devs.

[jaggederest]

I'm actually conflating both, you're right. I'm thinking of sprite-ed CSS, but also the really really old style imagemap where the same image could be clickable in multiple areas for different purposes.

[0xcde4c3db]

I'm sure it's due to lack of standardization on the early web, but the really wild thing to me is that there are both client-side and server-side image maps (both still specified in HTML5). With the former, the various regions of the image are defined within the HTML and more or less act like regular links. With the latter, the client sends the coordinates to the server and gets redirected, so the user has no idea which pixels correspond to which URL.