4 ms·
Recall that EXIF data is textual, and therefore no larger than kilobytes in contrast to the megabytes that JPEGs otherwise take up. While this may eventually ad
by syrrim 9y ago
Recall that EXIF data is textual, and therefore no larger than kilobytes in contrast to the megabytes that JPEGs otherwise take up. While this may eventually add up to gigabytes of bandwidth, it will only be after downloading terabytes of JPEGs.
One can imagine a variety of small things that are only useful to a minority of visitors, and go unnoticed by the rest. "alt" attributes on images are one example, that are often used by the blind, but are mostly unused by anyone else. Do you think provisions for the blind should be removed, due to wasting (tiny amounts of) data?
- ShirsenduK 9y agoWhen I spoke about bandwidth it was about the server. I should have made it more clear. Those costs add up over months. The alt tags are VERY important for SEO purposes.
- tolien 9y agoThe same applies whether it’s the server or user bandwidth, the volume used by EXIF data is going to be tiny compared to the relatively incompressible image data you’re shifting.