Need basic advice on images in IL copied to Word

Question

Some time ago I started using IL instead of PPT for my basic vector graphics.  The images are then used on web sites or in documents.  I sorta know how to place images in ID but I'm having a hard time getting good quality results when I use them in Word if I need to do any scaling.
I use this technique:  Determine the physical dimensions of the image in Word.  Within IL I Select All and then scale to the appropriate %.  I then export as a bmp (300dpi) and finally insert the bmp in the Word document.  I'm getting bad line edges.
There has to be a science and art to doing this and I benefit from some learning.
Would someone point me to info on file formats, resizing, etc. so I can up to speed?  There has to be a simple tutorial out there that also helps explain all the file formats.
Tom

Answer 1

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
I assume one gets better print quality if a DPI flag is present.
No. What you're referring to as "a DPI flag" is just a scale factor. Many raster formats do not store a scale factor. Even those that do may be be ignored by the program into which it is imported.
Because it's just a scale factor, it is simple to compensate, regardless of file format. For example, if you place a 72 PPI image (it's better to refer to raster resolution as Pixels Per Inch, not Dots Per Inch) into a layout, and then scale it to 50%, its PPI will then be 144.
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
A little later there's a post suggesting emf for Office.  I tried that but the quality of the graphics still are very poor....The graphics is pretty simple.  A few rounded rectangle boxes, a couple straight lines, and text areas.
Depends on content. Fills? Grads? Version? Without gettting into alot of object-specific caveats, just try it. If you get unsatisfactory results, you'll have to resort to a raster format. Use PNG.
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
I ran the same test using a png.  The rectangle lines are much better as is the text but the text is a little "bolder" than the original and just slightly blurry.
Try toggling the option for either Type Optimized or Art Optimized. It's accessible in the PNG export dialog and in the Save For Web dialog.
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
...is there any easy explanation why these export formats perform differently in Word (for my education)?
Rasterization is, by its nature, a compromise. That's one reason why vector graphics exist. When working with office applications, resorting to raster formats is often unavoidable. Office apps simply do not support the kinds of vector graphics which (PostScript) programs designed for the print world do. Again, that's why print-oriented graphics programs exist. Word, for example, doesn't know didly about printing color separations.
Similarly, web browsers ignore the scale factors embedded in images; instead you code the image scaling in the HTML.
So the simple fact is, not all programs can handle the "higher end" functionality of cubic Bezier curves, CMYK images, etc., etc. So one has to find acceptable "lowest common denominators," which--when speaking of graphics--usually means restorting to raster images and accepting the inherent limitations of that.
On the other hand, Illustrator can't handle things as basic as data merge or tables, either.
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
Is it possible there's something about my graphics (font chosen, stroke size, ???) that makes it difficult for these transforms?
You're dealing with rasterization and anti-aliasing. Again, it's a compromize required whenever working with raster formats. If you don't anti-alias, you get "less fuzzy" text at small sizes, but you also get more jagged edges in vector objects.
You just have to have realistic expectations when rasterizing small text.
JET