Michael Stevens wrote: > I probably could optimize the images and save as GIF. I've never liked GIF > and never used it unless I need transparency. JPG usually looks better but > in this case GIF might not be so bad in this instance. > Can I go slightly off topic for this list for a moment? Whether GIF or JPG looks better always depends on the kind of image you are working with (unless you're not compressing your JPGs at all). There is no general rule: "JPG looks better" or "GIF looks better". They compress images in completely different ways so which method produces the best quality image for the smallest file size depends entirely on your source image.
For images composed of blocks of single colours - typically logos, graphs, illustrations - GIF will in fact normally look better than a JPG because you won't get JPG artifacts. For images with complex colours, like photos or multiple-gradient logos on the other hand, GIF will almost always suck. Not to have a go at Michael specifically, but I've also just got to take a moment here for a.... <rant class="filesize"> Web designers should always care about the filesize of their images. In fact they should care about filesize period - whether that's optimising HTML, Javascript, CSS or images. Part of the promise of web standards was leaner, meaner code. This seems to be going out the window a lot these days, from entire bloaty JS libraries loaded just for a single animation effect or two, to image-heavy designs with massive, unoptimised background images all loaded via CSS. When you get a new launch, CSS layout site weighing in at nearly 650Kb for the homepage - such as one I saw just today - a bit more attention to cleaning things up is desperately needed. Not everyone has broadband, and even those that do will always appreciate the near instant load you can get if you just take a bit of extra time to optimise what you do. </rant> I'm now getting really OT for this list and am sounding pretty <oldcrone>"in my day we were lucky to have a 28k modem"</oldcrone> to boot so I'll stop now. Thanks for reading this far. - Sophie -- Sophie Dennis, Creative Director Cayenne Web Development Limited www.cayenne.co.uk Bloxham Mill, Barford Road Bloxham, Oxfordshire OX15 4FF t. 0870 389 0570 m: 07814 026632 Reg. England and Wales no. 4502369 ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
