jaffathecake

5 ms·

31.
by jaffathecake 26d ago
Encoding time is one of the things that JPEG XL has claimed over AVIF for years, but in the latest encoders, it doesn't seem to be the case.
32.
by jaffathecake 26d ago
Because what you save in terms of storage, you pay for in decode time, which is an important consideration on the web.
33.
by jaffathecake 26d ago
I personally find AVIF more versatile. I just throw images at it, and it does a great job. As the article identifies, JPEG XL performs worse than AVIF in general, but it's particularly bad at things like illustrations and screenshots.
34.
by jaffathecake 26d ago
I'm pretty sure 444 h264 fails to decode on iOS Safari due to poor support in the hardware decoder.
35.
by jaffathecake 26d ago
Browsers already fully support 4:4:4 AVIF and are not going to regress on this, as it would be a huge compat issue. It isn't clear whether AVIF hardware decoding will ever be an advantage, but for video formats, Firefox and Chrome alre
36.
by jaffathecake 26d ago
I prefer the UX of the AVIF example here. I think it's better to have a progressive phase where the image is obviously "not ready", yet you can still determine important details like the subject of the image (unlike a blurhas
37.
Controlling when CSS custom properties are computed(jakearchibald.com)
5 points by jaffathecake 1mo ago|0 comments
38.
by jaffathecake 2mo ago
I don't think this is going to work out. With the way progressive loading works in JXL, you don't really hit "good looking" points aside from at DC resolution.
39.
by jaffathecake 2mo ago
I think you missed the point. In cases of poor connectivity, you're not receiving (eg) 200 kB gradually over 10 seconds, it's more likely that you get nothing for 10 seconds then 200 kB lands. This is why progressive rendering doe
40.
by jaffathecake 2mo ago
AVIF video does support an alpha channel, which AV1, annoyingly, doesn't.
41.
by jaffathecake 2mo ago
Yeah it's the latter. I'm going to look into adding transcoding, but Squoosh is currently set up to pass a bitmap to the encoder rather than the original image, because the original image can be processed first.
42.
by jaffathecake 2mo ago
It matters less, but more because data tends to land in 'bursts' when connectivity is poor, so unless the image is massive, you're less likely to see a partial image.
43.
by jaffathecake 2mo ago
It often comes down to compat, and developer requests. Personally I find in-browser encoding for images inadequate, because it doesn't expose enough options. When we built https://squoosh.app/ , we exposed the browser e
44.
by jaffathecake 2mo ago
Some background on this, and demos of JPEG XL's progressive rendering: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/08/intent-to-ship-jpeg-xl/
45.
Firefox Intent to Ship: JPEG XL(hacks.mozilla.org)
25 points by jaffathecake 2mo ago|7 comments
46.
by jaffathecake 2mo ago
The solution in the post is 4 lines: <button aria-labelledby="bold-tooltip"> <svg>(bold icon)</svg> </button> <div id="bold-tooltip" popover="hint">B
47.
by jaffathecake 2mo ago
Unstylable, incorrect semantics, doesn't appear on hover, only supports text content.
48.
by jaffathecake 2mo ago
Thank you! I switched from Prism to https://shiki.style/ recently to enable that, and allow VSCode-style wrapping (where it wraps to the indent, rather than the start of the line).
49.
The Goldilocks customizable <select> height(jakearchibald.com)
2 points by jaffathecake 3mo ago|0 comments
50.
by jaffathecake 4mo ago
> So websites can now nag users to allow access to the root of their local disk No, Chrome doesn't allow this. Here's a simple demo: https://output.jsbin.com/kekekac/quiet - note that you can't select
51.
by jaffathecake 5mo ago
> The user agent is the proper channel for the agency Jake is seeking here. Theres nothing preventing the user & their user agent from negotiating what model they use. This isn't how it works. As the developer, you use the syste
52.
by jaffathecake 5mo ago
Yes! It might lie or hallucinate. But also, all browsers claim to be "Mozilla/5.0" in their user agent string. It's a very similar problem.
53.
by jaffathecake 5mo ago
It's fun that I get to be called both "anti-AI" and an "AI shill" by people on the internet depending on the day of the week.
54.
by jaffathecake 5mo ago
Thank you for posting this. On interoperability, time will tell I guess. I've only been working on Firefox for a few months, but general interop issues are way worse than I realised when we worked together at Chrome. Firefox frequently
55.
by jaffathecake 5mo ago
Aww thanks for saying that! I've been doing little videos on https://www.youtube.com/@FirefoxWebDevs (and accounts of the same name, pretty much everywhere). Although they're designed to be short, so they're
56.
by jaffathecake 5mo ago
Agreed. Maybe Google will propose a CSS text formatting property that cannot be used on paragraphs that are critical of the US administration. Like, that sounds daft, but it's not really far from what they're doing here.
57.
by jaffathecake 5mo ago
I think the objection here is unrelated to the love or hate of LLMs. It's about the viability of this particular proposed open web API. I personally use LLMs for coding assistance, and some home automation stuff, but I do not think thi
58.
by jaffathecake 5mo ago
Aww thanks! To be fair I didn't toe the party line when I was at Google (imo). Although, that caused me increasing amount of grief internally, until I left. From what I hear, things have gotten exponentially worse in that regard for fo
59.
by jaffathecake 5mo ago
Sigh, when I posted this, I linked to https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1213#i... (which was posted 11 hours ago). Unfortunately someone changed the link.
60.
by jaffathecake 5mo ago
When I posted this, I linked to the latest statement https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1213#i... , which is the content relevant to the title (the details of our opposition to the API). Unf

More ›