The High Speed Internet (HSI) has deceived me and lured me into the placement of 300 to 400 kB graphics onto this website. And not until I witnessed what my friends in Croatia are going through when visiting the site, would I realize what disservice I am doing to my objective of quality graphical presentation.

Certainly, for many of my images there are alternatives to JPG 80 which I typically use as a graphic file format, that is, smaller file size alternatives which do not reduce the image quality on a computer screen. Are there some general rules when these alternatives are acceptable? The research presented here involves 12 images of increasing complexity, but within the limits of rectangular color fields of only two colors, red RGB (FF0000) and blue RGB (0000FF):

The figure above is a legend; the test images are all 256 by 256 pixels, without a code (white numerals), all color fields are multiples of a 8 by 8 pixels cell, and the number of color fields makes the series

1,2,4,8,16,32,64,64,128,256,512,1024.

The images are composed in Micrografx Designer v.7.1, and the file size research is conducted in Adobe Photoshop LE v.2.0. In all reported file types and file sizes, my eye could not detect an image deterioration on the computer screen at 96 pixels per inch.