3 ms·
> typical devices If you need to design for today, that's fine. If you're designing for the future, well, already pushing 4K. Your "looks just fine on most de
by hypertele-Xii 4y ago
> typical devices
If you need to design for today, that's fine.
If you're designing for the future, well, already pushing 4K. Your "looks just fine on most devices" image is gonna look like an eye-squintingly tiny compressed-to-hell JPEG from 1992 in a decade or two.
Think about music. "Sounds good on most devices (earbuds at the time)" caused an entire generation of music to be mixed to shit. You expect everyone to remaster?
My own website doesn't qualify because I have gallery pages with multiple 1MB works of art. I hope my works can be appreciated in the future, on better devices. If that excludes me from a tiny ring of web designers essentially running an ad hoc demoscene competition for who can make the prettiest page in 1MB, so be it.
- chubot 4y agoBut (file) compression doesn't hurt the quality! At least not compared with post-production. An entire generation of music sounds like crap BOTH before AND after compression with mp3. e.g. Recent RHCP or Metallica records are squashed to hell if you whether you are listening to them on 1411 kbps CD or 128 kbps MP3. I'm not as familiar with image production, but if you think 100 KB is too small, then 200 KB is likely fine, and it's still many times smaller. Or make it 500 KB -- it depends highly on the image. I think the problem is that the way to use compression effectively is unfortunately not common knowledge and not really documented (maybe someone here has a good link)