>> Clean looking, with good sized images that load relatively
>> quickly. On
>> the whole, I prefer this k.i.s.s. apporoach to web design.
>>
>> The average size of my uploaded images to goolepages is 150kb.
>>
>> Could I make the same size images smaller in file size w/o too much
>> loss in quality?

---

 >Problem is, any image of 250k or smaller is not going to show such
 >details as name badges etc clearly, or even legibly at all.
 >Pixelation is ths problem. If you try to enlarge such an image, all
 >you'll see is pixels... no extra detail, unlike larger images.

---------- reply --------

The images on Richard's site are between 40k and 90k in size.  Just
the right size for the intended purpose.  And no annoying thumbnails
that require clicking.  His pictures are big enough to see adequate
detail, but still offer reasonable load times.

Notice the sizing of his pictures also, they are about 800 pixels
wide x 530 high (11.1" x 7.4") at 72 dpi.
That renders a good size for 1024 x 768 and up monitors, no lateral
scrolling.  Additionally, anything more than 72 dpi is not required
for viewing on computer screens.  So keep it at 72 dpi for the web.

A look at Richard's code shows an efficient and simple text only
page. Web designers today seem to be unable to resist using every
possible gimmick available.

http://jones.colorado.edu/jones/BByBridge/

Gary Lee