- This topic is empty.
We need to get support for WebP images. The almighty Google, (give thanks and praise) is advocating websites usage of WebP images for faster download times!
At the moment there are no way of importing WebP images into Bootstrap Studio!
All the Best,
I wouldn’t jump on the WebP format so quickly. Google has been advocating WebP for five years now. It hasn’t caught on for a number of reasons, backward compatibility and universal support being two big ones. Facebook even rejected the standard because users didn’t like downloading images they couldn’t do anything with.
Google is sort of obsessed with “running” the web, and while they have many good ideas, they’re not all-knowing. Right now, mobile speed (bandwidth) and storage are still concerns, kind of how hard drive storage was a big deal a decade ago. Once 5G becomes universal, cloud storage becomes ubiquitous, and data plan costs drop, people aren’t even going to think about file sizes because the difference between a downloading a 3 meg image and a 300k image will be imperceptible.
Compression is a trade-off to band-aid developing technology. In time, compression of all file formats will go the way of the dinosaur.JoMemberValued
Being an apple user for Desktop, iPad and iPhone, I will agree 100% with Printninja, not time for this support yet. Would rather see the time spent on other more prominent features that have been asked for way before this and should be supported already 😛TwinstreamMember
Yes I see no reason why WebP is not alllowed. 60 % file size reduction at the same quality. Google has a script that tests for browser support so its easy to add a fallback for browsers like Safari and IE11. Heck, have two data-srcsets and lazy load both conditionaly loading jpg and WebP and still use the wonderful srcset….no picture element.
Again, no reason that this format should NOT be allowed. Perfectly safe.
How is cloud based image hosting going to solve the lack of WebP support in Bootstrap Studio?
People need to understand that Google has a vested interest in making everything on the web as small, compressed and fast as it can be, regardless of whether it’s best for users, because it saves them throughput which reduces their search costs. Ten years ago they bought the company that came up with the WebP compression algorithm, so naturally they’d love to see it embraced so their investment pays off. They implemented WebP across YouTube for all their thumbnails and saved a whopping 10%. Significant when you’re YouTube with millions of thumbnails. Trivial for most other people.
Next problem: while WebP does, in many (but not all) cases result in slightly smaller image sizes with little to no compromise in quality, it still lacks universal support (even after being around for almost ten years.) And this assumes you’re starting with uncompressed, raw image files and converting to a compressed format. Going from .jpg to WebP is a dicey affair. Furthemore, when dealing with alpha channels (24bit PNGs) WebP images are always larger.
Third problem: WebP images are kinda useless when it comes to sharing. You can’t easily view them in native Windows apps, you can’t edit them in Photoshop (without a plug-in), and you can’t send them to your friends with Apple products.
So it boils down to costs vs benefits. Do your really want to code jpg fallbacks for all your WebP images for the Apple and IE crowd just to enjoy a small amount of data savings for Chrome and Firefox users on certain larger images (assuming your site has lots of large photos and is not specifically a photography site (in which you’d generally stay away from any compressed format for your images.)
IMO, lazy loading is a simpler solution.
After ten years, if the format had merit, it would have already been adopted universally.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.