Copy image? Nope, here’s the link instead.

  • Zangoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    Why are we sending someone to “Extra Hell” for making an improved image format that has better compression and is an overall improvement over all 3 of the existing formats it replaces (jpeg, png, gif)?

    Shouldn’t this apply to everyone the companies who refused to adopt it, thus breaking every normal image workflow? (Same thing can be said about JXL)

    Edit: fix vague wording

    • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      12 days ago

      Because they have a poor user experience with an OS and applications that have chosen not to support it properly, and blame the image format for this

    • 666dollarfootlong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 days ago

      I’d say the knowledge about webp’s benefits is not mainstream at all, I learned about it last week from a random YouTube video. So when people download a file that isn’t working as expected they don’t know who to be mad at so they make memes like this.

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        Obviously be mad at whoever responded to a request without accept webp in it with a webp or didn’t provide an alternative. Nothing wrong with supporting webp with a fallback

    • ms.lane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 days ago

      It’s not an improvement over PNG.

      but it has an optional lossless mode that no one uses

      No one uses it and even if they did, you’d never know since there isn’t a .webl or .webpl to differentiate lossless.

      You know a PNG in lossless, you know a jpg is lossy. webp should just be assumed lossy 100% of the time.