Images are an essential part of any Web page and from a designer point of view they are not an extra but a most mandatory item for every site. However, here designers and search engines are on two poles because for search engines every piece of information that is buried in an image is lost. When working with designers, sometimes it takes a while to explain to them that having textual links (with proper anchor text) instead of shining images is not a whim and that clear text navigation is really mandatory. Yes, it can be hard to find the right balance between artistic performance and SEO-friendliness but since even the finest site is lost in cyberspace if it cannot be found by search engines, a compromise to its visual appearance cannot be avoided.
With all that said, the idea is not to skip images at all. Sure, nowadays this is impossible because the result would be a most ugly site. Rather the idea is that images should be used for illustration and decoration, not for navigation or even worse – for displaying text (in a fancy font, for example). And the most important – in the <alt> attribute of the <img> tag, always provide a meaningful textual description of the image. The HTML specification does not require this but search engines do. Also, it does not hurt to give meaningful names to the image files themselves rather than name them image1.jpg, image2.jpg, imageN.jpg. For instance, in the next example the image file has an informative name and the alt provides enough additional information: <img src=“one_month_Jim.jpg” alt=“A picture of Jim when he was a one-month puppy”>. Well, don't go to extremes like writing 20-word <alt> tags for 1 pixel images because this also looks suspicious and starts to smell like keyword-stuffing.

Don't forget the TITLE tag either - ALT tag only shows if the image doesn't exist or if you disable images. TITLE tag shows regardless and is also good for/used by screen readers

the best image format for web pages is "gif " format. i notice that jpeg is good but, load for when loading.

Warning : be careful how you combine and use this image formats!.

Think about it?.

I think the best policy is to use the best format for the job. for instance, photographs will come out with better quality as jpgs than gifs. Jpgs for photos will also weigh less than their gif equivalents.

ax242001:


the best image format for web pages is "gif " format. i notice that jpeg is good but, load for when loading.

Warning :  be careful how you combine and use this image formats!.

Think about it?.

Seriously?

yawa-ti-de:

I think the best policy is to use the best format for the job.

Simple!

@OP
You have to use the best format for the job. Lemme just give you some stuffs I know about colors. .

For starters, use gif for animated images. Secondly, since gif has only 255 colors, you shouldn't use them for photos! You tend to loose an enormous amount of the photo's quality! However, a gif image can also be used for an icon of some background image that you want to keep repeating itself over x-pixels

So the question is, what format do you use for photos? Well I think it should be obvious that you use JPG for photos. Cant really say more! Finally, my best is the png. no matter how you compress it, you dont loose quality like you do on jpg(those that use photoshop shud kno what am talking about).

So it all boils down to using the right image for the job. Personally, i kinda like staying away from gifs. . .

I read some article somewhere sometime about images, tryna locate it and when i do i wud give u a link to it.

Logos, icons, buttons - GIF
Photos - JPG
Transparent - PNG

These are not standards, my siggy applies.

for me, i always try PNG. If that doesn't satisfy me size-wise, i try JPG before lastly settling for GIF.

if its an image that doesn't have to be high quality or require high details, i'd use GIF most probably. But if i need high quality with small size, i use PNG. in my experience so far, PNG has about the smallest size for most images u've worked with as compared to GIF or JPG. i guess that's why it's called PNG, portable network graphics. i especially like it for its transparency as i work A LOT with images that should have transparent backgrounds. there's no transparency with JPG and that sucks sometimes cos JPG sometimes has the smallest size when i need to export.

same things, depends on the task at hand sha