This is what I'm going for on my Vanagon Googlepages site

tubaneil.googlepages.com

I'm trying smaller thumbnails now. This will change.

I have found that irfanview (www.irfanview.com) works well and I'm
learning more about reducing file size.

Yah simple is good. I have no need for bells and whistles and am aware
that some Vanagon-ites use dial up. I'm also aware that someone on the
road looking at content on a PDA  might want pages that are easier to
read with a small display. i.e. no dancing GIF's clogging things up. I
too think it's nice to have pics that don't need to be clicked on. To
this end, I am working to make my google site simpler/quicker to
download. My .mac site? well don't get me started! If I can fit the
same content on one or two FREE Googlepages sites, I'll do it. Of
course there won't be any more of my Vanagon "educational" videos! I
was finding those a PITA to make anyways!

--- ;^)

Here's to simpler quicker to download Vanagon web sites!

Neil.

On Feb 5, 2008 4:07 PM, Gary Lee www.vwrack.com <gary2a@telus.net> wrote:
> >> 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
>

--
Neil Nicholson. 1981 Air Cooled Westfalia - "Jaco"
http://web.mac.com/tubaneil

Engine swap beginings: http://tubaneil.googlepages.com/