I use webp a lot, it’s smaller than PNG for lossless images like screenshots and smaller than JPG for lossy while working for both. All the image editors and image viewers I use support it, so it’s not inconvenient for me in any way.
Also Portable Network Graphics, as the name suggests, is a network image format, not a digital image format. Just having a laugh : )
I think you are talking about website hosting, which has nothing to do with my offline images. I have nothing to do with websites.
But if you are talking about using it for publishing, some time ago I published a mobile app that shows an offline map for some mountain trails. All the map tiles were originally PNG and took 900MB, but I got them to 50MB as WebP tiles. That’s quite a reduction, nobody would download a 900MB app!
I use webp a lot, it’s smaller than PNG for lossless images like screenshots and smaller than JPG for lossy while working for both. All the image editors and image viewers I use support it, so it’s not inconvenient for me in any way.
Also Portable Network Graphics, as the name suggests, is a network image format, not a digital image format. Just having a laugh : )
why does the size of images matter when the compiled JS bloat is 60x what it should be?
if you’re properly using content caching load times shouldn’t be a problem at all, thus negating challenges to image file sizes.
and if you’re using webp for HQ images you’re better off using png or even jpg.
I think you are talking about website hosting, which has nothing to do with my offline images. I have nothing to do with websites.
But if you are talking about using it for publishing, some time ago I published a mobile app that shows an offline map for some mountain trails. All the map tiles were originally PNG and took 900MB, but I got them to 50MB as WebP tiles. That’s quite a reduction, nobody would download a 900MB app!