On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:28:32 -0700 (PDT), "Dave, I can't do that"
wrote:

On Jun 12, 9:17Â*pm, Winston wrote:
This is the kind of image that should load during page refreshes.
It's 4.7K or 5% the size of the original and less than 12% the size of
the compressed version.

AWinston
I agree, but I was trying to point out that a 60% saving could be made
on the big pics. Had I done it thumbnail size as you did, it is near
impossible to compare detail. I was trying to convince someone to do
something a different way and unless you can show there is virtually
no visual difference there is little chance of them being convinced.

Verily, and I've taken a guy's 111kb page and put it out at 10kb after
some fine tuning. Micro$oft Word-to-HTML output is the worst.


@Larry, I hate it when people say, "but it' s better than...."
That irritates me comparing one poorly made thing against an even
worse made thing as though there is some justification for the first
item's existence just because it is not as bad as it could be. That's
the good old, "near enough" syndrome that appears to be leading the
way these days.

I see that you'd rather I say what I meant, which was "It's not nearly
as bad as some I've seen." Feel better now?

--
You are today where your thoughts have brought you;
you will be tomorrow where your thoughts take you.
-- James Lane Allen