5 ms·
It seems I have an uneducated eye by their standards, because I barely see any difference, which I'm happy to admit, but I think the author misses the point of
by cybrox 3y ago
It seems I have an uneducated eye by their standards, because I barely see any difference, which I'm happy to admit, but I think the author misses the point of webp completely.
The format is intended to bring down the file size of graphics in general, not high-level photography which accounts for probably 0.5% of the images on the internet.
This is a case of the best daily driver car won't be good enough for a race car driver.
- digging 3y agoYeah this article comes off as almost idiotic to me. It is entirely irrelevant unless you're supporting high-quality photography on your site, in which case, yeah obviously you're going to be careful about how you compress your images. For the vast majority of web images, use webp if it's smaller. Minuscule artifacts and judgy designers aren't going to get in the way.