not here...no detail in the shadow..some lines look like just dots...same
for the text.

Having only an image on your main page does hurt something...your SEO
position. Search engines can't read what's in an image.

Almost any image editor can save as a progressive...however, I'm not sure
how that would solve the op's question about transitioning an image.

You are asking some open ended questions here, that will require some more
reading and planning on your part.

First of all you need to face the limitations of using a DTP to produce a
website. Publisher is ok for simple, small static websites, but it is not
the best program to produce a website...regardless of the version. As you
rethink which version to use, you should also rethink whether you should use
some other program entirely. If you have been reading the recent posts, you
will run across a discussion with a FrontPage MVP who argues that no one
should ever use Publisher to produce a website. It may be that you should
invest the time and money to buy and learn how to use the FrontPage
replacement Web Expression, or some other program specifically designed for
web development. Most of this depends on the goals for your website. If you
have some ambitious goals for your site, then you will probably outgrow
Publisher and eventually move to Web Expression. If you plan on KISS then
you can probably use Publisher.

The first article you should read: Using Publisher for web sites:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/articles/80566.aspx

Then you ask should you use Pub 2000 or 2003. Personally I prefer 2000, but
once again there are advantages and disadvantages to both. When MSFT adopted
Publisher into the Office family in Office 2002, they changed the html
coding engine in Publisher in a big way. There were a number of other
changes, so the next two articles you should read are:

Web Publication Changes Made in Version 2002 of Publisher:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/pages/81262.aspx

Publisher 2003 - What's new in web design for this version:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/pages/80555.aspx

One of the differences in the way Pub 2000 and 2003 can be seen in your
welcome page, or "splash page". You have constructed the page by overlapping
a text box with a fancy border with at least two images. You can layer
images and text like this in 2003, but Pub 2000 will convert all those
objects into one image. You can see this for yourself by opening a blank web
page in Pub 2000 and opening your publication in 2003. Then File > Select
All > Copy. Move to your Pub 2000 page and paste. Do a web page preview in
both and see if you can see the difference.

Also you should Publish to the Web with your Pub 2003 page, and direct the
output to a folder on your computer...I usually send to my Desktop so it is
easy to find and delete when I am done. Then in Pub 2000 do a Save As a web
page, and direct that output to another folder on your computer. Open the
folders and study the files. In Pub 2000 you will see that you have one GIF
file that includes all the text, border and the other two images. In 2003
you will see multiple files and perhaps multiple copies of the different
images in multiple formats and quality. This is because Publisher 2003 uses
VML. Oh and by the way, in Pub 2003, be sure to go to Tools > Options > Web
tab and uncheck "Rely on VML..." and "Allow PNG...", before you Publish to
the Web.

The use of VML in Pub 2003 web publications is one of the biggest
differences. When you insert an image into a Pub 2000 document and convert
to html, Publisher will make one copy of that image at the size of the
picture box and at 96 dpi. When you insert an image in Publisher 2003,
because of VML, Publisher can make multiple copies in various formats and
resolutions, such as PNG, GIF and JPG with the goal of serving up the best
image depending on what browser is used to view the site. You will get one
image with IE and another image with FireFox, for example. Once again you
should test this out for yourself, by downloading and installing FireFox.
http://en.www.mozilla.com/en/firefox/

Yes, I know, this probably sounds like a pain in the rear gear, but if you
are serious about wanting to build your own site, and even answering the
question about what program to use, then you will take this necessary step.
FF is a fairly small download, and installing it does not mean that you have
to use it instead of IE. Just be careful as you install it that you do not
make it the default browser.

Assuming that you have downloaded and installed FF, now open FF, File > Open
File and browse to the two Publisher folders you created earlier and open
the .htm file in the Pub 2003 folder and the .html file in the Pub 2000
folder. Compare within FF, and then compare to what you get in IE. In Pub
2000 what you see in FF will probably look just like what you get in IE.
Remember that by overlapping the images and the text Publisher converts to a
GIF. However, in FF, you should see an entirely different quality page. This
is because of VML and the way the Publisher html coding engine works.

What you just tested was the cross browser capability of the two programs.
Pub 2000 generally has better cross browser capability....but you can
workaround some of those differences in Pub 2003.

There are some more issues and differences to consider, but at this point I
am out of time, and you are probably already overloaded. Try to get FF
installed and do the comparisons and tests I have suggested, and I will add
more to this discussion later...perhaps this afternoon or evening. As I
said, there is no simple answer to your question as to whether to use Pub
2000 or 2003...or a different program entirely. What is important is take
some time now answering those questions and planning your site...and the
goals you have for your site. Time spent now educating yourself about your
options and planning your site will pay off in the future.

DavidF