We save terabytes of expensive bandwidth this way, but the complexity required to render different formats is something we'd be happy to do away with.
On one hand I'm sure that practically everyone who uses this site is using a modern browser that will support webp images and in practice no one (or very few people) will be impacted. But on the other hand it feels like only providing webp images may leave some folks behind. From a digital preservation standpoint providing jpegs just feels good cause it's like so unlikely to ever go obsolete as a format. Ancient computers support it and you can pretty much guarantee future ones will continue to support it.
It's less about perfectly preserving the quality of the original and more about ensuring that the data remains decipherable.
Like if you're archiving something that contains charts, a pixel perfect image of the chart is no good if your device can't read the file format. But if it's a JPEG chances are you can still render and understand what it has despite any lossiness.
Dev Comms Lead at @Catchpoint, working on @RealWebPageTest™.
Toronto Web Performance, JAMstack TORONTO curator.
Conference speaker, consultant and organizer.
#DevsWhoRun.
If you're talking about ppl from emerging markets being left behind - I certainly do understand, and a great point. But would you believe that the 1st browser to support webp outside of Chrome 10 yrs ago, was Opera? The renown client of choice for emerging markets and have been in full support long before everyone else. So the very ppl you might consider being left behind were likely concerned we were left behind - since major browsers only came aboard in late 2018 - now. 🙃
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
On one hand I'm sure that practically everyone who uses this site is using a modern browser that will support webp images and in practice no one (or very few people) will be impacted. But on the other hand it feels like only providing webp images may leave some folks behind. From a digital preservation standpoint providing jpegs just feels good cause it's like so unlikely to ever go obsolete as a format. Ancient computers support it and you can pretty much guarantee future ones will continue to support it.
Like I think there's a reason archives still default to JPEG.
Like I said, probably doesn't matter for Dev and it's user base, but it's interesting to think about from a digital preservation standpoint IMO. 😅
That's a very good point! Thanks for bringing this to the discussion.
Using lossy image format for preservation?
It's less about perfectly preserving the quality of the original and more about ensuring that the data remains decipherable.
Like if you're archiving something that contains charts, a pixel perfect image of the chart is no good if your device can't read the file format. But if it's a JPEG chances are you can still render and understand what it has despite any lossiness.
If you're talking about ppl from emerging markets being left behind - I certainly do understand, and a great point. But would you believe that the 1st browser to support webp outside of Chrome 10 yrs ago, was Opera? The renown client of choice for emerging markets and have been in full support long before everyone else. So the very ppl you might consider being left behind were likely concerned we were left behind - since major browsers only came aboard in late 2018 - now. 🙃