Okay, what did you ask your AI?My AI says:
It is feasible to observe sites that say that WebP is superior to JPEG, however it is more precise to say that WebP is a likely option in contrast to JPEG. This is on the grounds that JPEG is as yet the most generally utilized configuration on the web, and keeping in mind that WebP is a practical other option, it isn't yet a feasible substitution.\n\nCertain individuals will say that WebP is superior to JPEG in light of the fact that it utilizes a further developed pressure calculation, which can create a superior quality picture with a more modest record size. WebP additionally upholds straightforwardness, which implies that it can uphold different picture designs, like GIF and PNG. Be that as it may, there are a few drawbacks to WebP also. For instance, WebP isn't upheld by Internet Explorer, and isn't upheld by most programs yet.
Why not use a image optimization plugin that supports a fallback function for browser that does not support it then, your missing out.I am not using .webp for one reason - not all browsers supports it.
On my wordpress sites almost all images are embedded. Where i use my images - jpg, png - it is not very big in size.Why not use a image optimization plugin that supports a fallback function for browser that does not support it then, your missing out.
In my opinion.. is too early for webp .. plenty of users with outdated browsers .
According to caniuse, currently 79.2% of browsers support the WebP image format.
So about 20% ..
This. Support is still not that great by browsers and OSs. Maybe in 5 years.I am not using .webp for one reason - not all browsers supports it.
My AI says:
It is feasible to observe sites that say that WebP is superior to JPEG, however it is more precise to say that WebP is a likely option in contrast to JPEG. This is on the grounds that JPEG is as yet the most generally utilized configuration on the web, and keeping in mind that WebP is a practical other option, it isn't yet a feasible substitution.\n\nCertain individuals will say that WebP is superior to JPEG in light of the fact that it utilizes a further developed pressure calculation, which can create a superior quality picture with a more modest record size. WebP additionally upholds straightforwardness, which implies that it can uphold different picture designs, like GIF and PNG. Be that as it may, there are a few drawbacks to WebP also. For instance, WebP isn't upheld by Internet Explorer, and isn't upheld by most programs yet.
PNG is comparable larger than JPG on it's ownPng IMO
If you're really concentrating on website speed, i recommend you to go for webp version. In general webp is 25 – 35% smaller in its file sizes than jpg.which image format should I choose for a website?
which third-party Image compressor you use to compress your image without losing quality and in which Dimensions??
Thnxx for your suggestions!!