4 ms·
A short explanation of what JPEG XL is or does at the beginning of the article would have been nice. Saying: """Google PIK + Cloudinary FUIF = JPEG XL""" Befo
by willtemperley 3y ago
A short explanation of what JPEG XL is or does at the beginning of the article would have been nice. Saying:
"""Google PIK + Cloudinary FUIF = JPEG XL"""
Before saying what it is, was a little of-putting.
- Dylan16807 3y agoIt's a section header in an article written as a story. It's normal for those to not be understood until you read the section. And the explanation begins with the first sentence of that section. I don't think this is a reasonable complaint.
- willtemperley 3y agoBut they didn't even explain what FUIF or PIK might be in that section or even the entire article! To understand that article required me searching for FUIF [1], PIK [2] and a brief explanation of what JPEG XL is trying to achieve. I double down on my "complaint" - I'd call it constructive criticism - that article was poorly written. It's actually quite a good story that their Free Universal Image Format (FUIF) has achieved what it has. That's a great acronym, especially for a world that thinks JPEG XL is a good acronym! Why not put in in the article. To save anyone else time: [1] https://github.com/cloudinary/fuif https://github.com/cloudinary/fuif [2] https://github.com/google/pik https://github.com/google/pik
- Dylan16807 3y agoThat's a fair criticism, though personally I feel like "it was a candidate to be the next JPEG" is enough information here, even if it's a bit barebones. There are several levels of detail you could go into about how the codec works, and this article decided to stay quite light.