Ask HN: Is only using WEBP images “acceptable” in 2021?
Or should I support the ubiquitous JPEG as well?
6 コメント
I did a review of this the other day.
https://caniuse.com/webp
The biggest holdout I can see is that users of older Macs don't have webP support on Safari. I have an old Mac Mini that my wife uses to read her email that is that old and confirmed that webP doesn't work. On that machine, WebP works just fine with Firefox.
I decided it was marginal and that I was going to support JPEG and WEBP in my current project because:
1. I'm not publishing a huge amount of content and the storage cost of the JPEG isn't a problem, and 2. I want the system to be adaptive to what image formats the client supports (looking forward to JPEG XL even though I'm disappointed with AVIF) I am building the facility in and might as well demonstrate it works with JPEG.
https://caniuse.com/webp
The biggest holdout I can see is that users of older Macs don't have webP support on Safari. I have an old Mac Mini that my wife uses to read her email that is that old and confirmed that webP doesn't work. On that machine, WebP works just fine with Firefox.
I decided it was marginal and that I was going to support JPEG and WEBP in my current project because:
1. I'm not publishing a huge amount of content and the storage cost of the JPEG isn't a problem, and 2. I want the system to be adaptive to what image formats the client supports (looking forward to JPEG XL even though I'm disappointed with AVIF) I am building the facility in and might as well demonstrate it works with JPEG.
Yes, I thinks so but it might depend on your audience, mobile bounce rate, content churn, and image automation build. Meaning you might find it preferable to serve most of your visitors images 60% smaller then worry much about those that are not evergreen.
Why would you not support jpeg?
More than twice the storage space required for what I'm hoping will be a very large amount of images uploaded to my server.
Well if its just you serving your own images then I think it doesn't matter. If its you hosting images for others, then that chould raise your costs but should be looked at as a cost of doing business and adjust pricing if necessary. The increased cost could be outweighed if there is a significant amount of business you didn't get by not offering the jpeg uploads.
If you use a service like Amazon S3 or Cloudflare R2 you pay a certain amount for storage and a certain amount for bandwidth.
In a collection of, say, a few million images, you will have many that generate very little traffic but others that become extremely popular in comparison. You might be worrying about "how to pay to store less popular images" and "how to pay for bandwidth for highly popular images" at the same time!
If I can publish only webp I feel like I am optimizing both storage costs and bandwidth costs at the same time. Adding more formats can help with bandwidth but can only hurt in terms of storage.
In a collection of, say, a few million images, you will have many that generate very little traffic but others that become extremely popular in comparison. You might be worrying about "how to pay to store less popular images" and "how to pay for bandwidth for highly popular images" at the same time!
If I can publish only webp I feel like I am optimizing both storage costs and bandwidth costs at the same time. Adding more formats can help with bandwidth but can only hurt in terms of storage.