Hacker News Reader

Comment by trompetenaccoun | Hacker News Reader

There are some other advantages, such as jxl being able to progressively load in web broswers, while avif can't for some reason. However avif compression seems to be better at low qualities, which might be relevant for some web applications, if one doesn't want to serve both jxl and avif.

There's a good visual comparison here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzsM4HMKmEI

View on HN

JPEG has had progressive loading on browsers since the almost the very beginning. But everybody stopped using it because it added slightly to the file size and "looked ugly." According to most web designers, anyway, who would actually rather serve the user a blank page than have even one of their precious pixels out of place.

I haven't actually seen a progressive jpeg rendering since the dialup days at any rate.

Most JPEGs are slightly smaller as progressive. The drawback is rather that it’s slightly more resource-intensive to decode, and if you overdo it and split the chroma, you can get weird effects: https://cloudinary.com/blog/progressive_jpegs_and_green_mart...

> According to most web designers, anyway, who would actually rather serve the user a blank page than have even one of their precious pixels out of place.

Think of pixels out of place as portions of code left unoptimised. It still compiles, runs and works just fine. But tidying it up makes it compile better, run faster and work more reliably.

Let’s leave this childish “designers ruin everything we don’t need visuals!!!!” nonsense for the reddits of the internet, yeah? You’re not a better code monkey just for complaining about designers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com