Wahaha OP wrote
Reply to comment by BlackWinnerYoshi in FF Solution to tell websites to fuck off with webp, but still allow display of webp if there is no alternative by Wahaha
If it was supported by everything, I wouldn't care. But it's now a decade old and still not supported by anything installed on my system designed to actually view images.
Also, since the storage gains from webp are kinda marginal - there are even situations when a jpg will be way smaller than a webp, it just adds to the grudge. If it at least delivered on the promises, people would maybe care to support it. But the way it is, a decade after its introduction, it's just a nuisance.
Also, cutting out trackers, ads and the scripts enabling them you could save way more traffic, than by shaving off a kilobyte or two per picture. Last I checked webp doesn't even support progressive loading. That's the feature that loads jpgs line by line on a slow connection, so you might decide to cancel after seeing half the picture.
BlackWinnerYoshi wrote
Okay, sure, not many things support WebP images even after a decade of its existence, and that the storage savings are marginal compared to removing trackers/ads/scripts, but I think you messed up baseline and progressive JPEG definitions. This might be a misunderstanding, though.
Anyway, progressive loading actually makes JPEG load the full image, just with decreased quality, unlike baseline JPEG, which loads half of the image. Here is a comparison I have made.
(note: I halved those images using dd
:
dd bs=[c/2] count=1 if=if.jpg of=of.jpg
where [c/2]
is the number of bytes in the image, halved and rounded up.)
Wahaha OP wrote
Interesting, I didn't know the proper terminology for this feature.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments