4 ms·
+1, this is super unfair to show the one point in time where AVIF progressive looks better - right after it receives its 'preview' (which as you say is 4x as bi
by janwas 21d ago
+1, this is super unfair to show the one point in time where AVIF progressive looks better - right after it receives its 'preview' (which as you say is 4x as big as JPEG XL's).
I value integrity, especially when communicating results. This is shameful.
(Disclosure: I worked on JPEG XL)
- computerbuster 20d agoI’ll just repeat another comment here: “For progressive, I think it's better to show the user something that's obviously a preview, but still has enough detail to be able to know what the picture is of. If you're showing the user something that they may mistake for complete but poor quality, that's a bad experience.” -jaffathecafe
- eviks 20d ago> that they may mistake for complete but poor quality That's what UI is for - show an indicator that it's not complete and avoid the confusion, bringing back to the original issue But also, that's not "obviously a preview", so you have the same potential confusion here
- janwas 20d agoI note you made no response to the objection about representing a temporal sequence with a single, nonrepresentative and cherry-picked, screenshot. As to bad experience, that seems like a legit personal preference, but disturbingly un-nuanced and absolutist if intended to apply to everyone. When on a train with spotty wifi or frequent tunnels, I would actually prefer to see whatever arrived. Someone on prepaid data might want to truncate at ~100 KB, no matter what the website owner or browser PM thought.