Qual é o melhor formato de imagem para usar hoje?
Imagens que substituem JPEG, PNG em formatos mais claros e de boa qualidade e os principais, assumidos pelos navegadores atuais.
Você gostaria de trocar informações sobre esses formatos e até mesmo a tendência de layout, bootstrap, Wordpres, angular?
Qual é a opinião dos colaboradores? para criar um site moderno com recursos atuais e funcionais em várias telas e plataformas. Isso permitirá ter as diretrizes e conhecer as vantagens e desvantagens de cada projeto.
Ola @Lucena, welcome back to the forum.
Just like mentioned with your previous post/topic (which you translate and is still unclear to me).
Can you post in English so we can understand you…
There are many users here on the Pinegrow forum that are willing to help,
but we need to communicate in English so everybody can read and understand.
If that is too difficult for you (which I can understand), maybe you can ask a friend, neighbor or family member to assist and help you translate your questions and comments to (clear) English.
It’s impossible for us to take a “language course” Portuguese!
Hi Terry, thank you for your help.
Yes I know the formats mentioned, but the lightest formats for fast loading, such as WebP and others;
I’m trying to load the page in 2.2 s or next to it.
I wouldn’t use WebP images. They’re not supported at all by Safari (Apple devices) older versions of Firefox, or any versions of IE. Also, there’s not much anyone can do with them. They aren’t easily shareable, and they can’t be easily opened in many graphics applications. To maintain compatibility with older browser would necessitate adding a lot of additional code to your site, which would only slow it down further.
Page load speed is determined by numerous factors, not just the size of your images. If your page if very graphic-heavy, you may want to lazy-load the images, so the area above the fold renders first.
Without seeing your actual code, it’s hard to say what factors are impacting your page load speed.
We use webp with jpg (optimized with jpegMini https://www.jpegmini.com/). There is absolutely no need to edit webp in an editor. You can work in jpg, TIFF or PNG and then at the end convert to webp.
Webp can be normal or transparent!
Safari is the only up to date browser that doesn’t read webp and people with older versions of Firefox or IE get jpg served. The majority of people is using the Chrome browser.
See here how it works by looking at the source of the website: www.yourweblab.nl/full-screen
Notice my system working by making the browser smaller or wider.
A Bootstrap 4 website with webp and jpg fallback: www.wilart.nl
I can’t find any reason not to make your websites blazing fast!
[http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide](stat counter/statistics/266136/global-market-share-held-by-smartphone-operating-systems/)
Just hoover over the graphic chart to see: Android 76% and IOS 22% world wide use
No matter what your arguments are today it’s smart to use webp for SEO reasons and create a jpg fallback for others. Notice in my websites that even the jpg’s are optimized with jpegMini and also serve a particular image for a particular device and screen width and pixel density.
First of all, thanks for the participation of Amigos!
I see that it is still a matter of choosing between best reach to all devices, in this case without using the webp; or work towards better SEO using images with traditional extensions.
I believe there is a lot to be neglected, it would be interesting for more colleagues to give an opinion, so we have a more realistic option for each case.
Let’s continue this chat !!
WebP may be a viable choice down the road, when it becomes more universally adopted. For now, I don’t see the point. SEO is not affected by which image format you use, only by overall page speed, and as I’ve demonstrated, there is virtually no penalty incurred from Google Pagespeed Insights using current standard image formats.
Some years ago, Facebook tried switching to the WebP format and users went bonkers complaining because they couldn’t do anything with the files. So they abandoned it.
In order for WebP to become a preferred format fon websites, you first need the major operating systems (Apple and Windows) to fully support it, you need universal mobile support, and you need Adobe to embrace it, because that’s the graphics workhorse that most agencies use.
I’m not saying WebP doesn’t have advantages, but just because something is technically better, doesn’t mean the world will embrace it. The metric system is better than the imperial system, and we still don’t use it here in the U.S. Betamax was better than VHS and VHS won. SACDs were vastly better than MP3s, but MP3s won.
