4 ms·
As someone else mentioned, it's much easier to just use ImageOptim if you're on Mac. There's also a CLI and accompanying tool for NPM that includes this and Ima
by acconrad 8y ago
As someone else mentioned, it's much easier to just use ImageOptim if you're on Mac. There's also a CLI and accompanying tool for NPM that includes this and ImageAlpha and JpegMINI: https://www.npmjs.com/package/imageoptim-cli https://www.npmjs.com/package/imageoptim-cli
But one thing I'd caution is that webp is not a panacea for image optimization. It's only supported in Chrome. If you want to fully leverage next-gen image formats cross browser, you'll also need JPEG 2000 and JPEG XR...and even if you do all of that, you still won't get support for Firefox.
There's also srcset and lossy compression, which are also viable options: https://userinterfacing.com/the-fastest-way-to-increase-your-sites-performance-now/ https://userinterfacing.com/the-fastest-way-to-increase-your...
- theandrewbailey 8y agoThe market fragmentation is why I prefer to use JPEGs more intelligently than authoring multiple versions of the same image for each browser. It feels like the 90s all over again. Using fewer images, smaller images, and caching them has worked well for me.
- reaperducer 8y agoI'm at the point now where I've realized that nothing is ever the solution all the time. It's a little frustrating. I used to use the rule of thumb that JPEG was for images, and PNG for charts, and things with text. But these days I go through each image I get from the art department and optimize it myself in Photoshop, cycling through a series of presets. To my surprise, depending on the image, sometimes an 8-bit PNG will end up smaller than a JPEG, and provide better visual quality. Naturally, your mileage will vary; at participating locations; not valid in Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico; no cash value; batteries not included; do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.