gradients!?!

[cd]

Hi! I am so frustrated. I spent ALL DAY YESTERDAY creating
awesome red gradient buttons for an image rollover map. I used Jasc
Paint Shop Pro 7 and converted them to gif's. When I published them, they got mutilated in IE. (meaning... they got transformed to websafe colors) Netscape looks fine, just as they do locally. What to do? I am so bummed. Can anyone give me any tips on how to compress (I did try to jpg them, with the same result.)
Thanks,

[Nicky]

What version of IE are you using? I was not aware that IE converted images to web safe colors, I thought it had more to do with your system rather than your browser!

[mjames]

Right... or you were using AOL, which can mutilate graphics.

[cd]

Nicky I am using IE 5.0 & just as Marc suggested AOL mutilated my graphics. Hitbox image reducer fixed it, although I did decrease the # of colors in PS Pro first. Now can see great gradients in AOL! BTW... Marc thanks much for the head's up, but I want AOL-ers to be able to see my hard work too...At least now I know the reason for mutilation. Appreciate the help.Yahoooo!!
Have a good one,
Chris

[creole]

CD...d you have your computer set to 16bit color? That can mutilate colors in a heartbeat...

[cd]

Thanks for the suggestion Creole, but nope, I'm set @ 24 bit. Culprit truly was AOL as Marco said.
chris

[etLux]

This is slightly to the left of the topic -- but has anyone got any idea whatsoever why AOL insists on doing this?

[Hierophant]

Because their browser supports a different more bandwidth friendly proprietary format called ART. This reduces the strain on their servers and provides the appearance of better bandwidth to their customers.

You can install ART support into Internet Explorer when you install it. This will make the graphics appear better.

[etLux]

I think I'll just rush right out and switch to AOL.

[creole]

> This will make the graphics appear better.

A matter of opinion actually...AOL's method merely compresses the images further resulting in blurry or hue-shifted images. I don't call that better. It is hard to believe that AOL is so successful when they give their users such a poor quality product. (and yes I know that this statement could apply to MANY other companies)

1) A browser that is one version behind and not even the full version at that.

2) Poor quality images. A sacrifice in the name of speed.

Think of how many AOL users have a skewed vision of what the Internet is because AOL doesn't want to "bother them" with the details.

[sheepdip]

Creole,
Thanks for your explanation. I think I have been too busy to even wonder "why" AOL looks so bad. I noticed it and now I know why those photos on AOL homepages look so bad. Is there any secret to ART file optimization? I still have my AOL account after 8 years...but when I think of all the cool stuff I could've bought instead, kinda' makes me want to ditch it. I don't even have AOL loaded on my computer anymore. I guess I'm sentimental. LOL

Regards, and thanks EtLux for asking!
sheepdip*

[etLux]

Originally posted by etLux
...has anyone got any idea whatsoever why AOL insists on doing this?

My question (above) wasn't on the technical aspect of this. I'm aware of the purported reasoning.

Rather, let me restate:

With the lousy results of this technique and the flack it continually draws from users, in view of the comparatively small savings in bandwidth, has anyone got any idea whatsoever why AOL insists on doing this?