4 ms·

> but 1% impact is pretty small The best you can say here is that it’s within the margin of error, in which case the effect is so small it’s literally unmeasur

> but 1% impact is pretty small The best you can say here is that it’s within the margin of error, in which case the effect is so small it’s literally unmeasurable. In that case the null hypothesis still wins, and you should not switch. > Is there any reason to assume that this problem is permanent and unfixable? IE11 as tested in the article is not getting anything other than security patches. The users who use IE11 are probably also the users most affected by poor performance since they most likely have the oldest hardware.

dahart 8y ago
Interesting response, thanks. Your comment gives me even more questions, though! > The best you can say here is that it’s within the margin of error What is preventing JPEG-XR from becoming faster and a net ux positive, tomorrow or in the future? Isn't the best I can say that today's results might be a bug or fluke or a quick and dirty implementation, and not a permanent problem? > IE11 as tested in the article is not getting anything other than security patches. The title and conclusion both said we should avoid JPEG-XR on the web, not that we should avoid it on IE11. You're right, the article focused on the problem with IE11. Is it already a net positive on Edge? (The article didn't say.) Should the shim to make it work in the old browser that fewer people use really override the potential benefits on the newer browser that more people are already using? Does it seem reasonable or unreasonable to make future web decisions depend on an old browser that's on life support today and has small and declining market share?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]