News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on BPG Image Format. Parent comment

Re:BPG Image Format by tjoff on Saturday October 03, 2020 @02:45AM (#24670131)
The web we got today are an astounding feat of not caring about performance in the most aggressive way imaginable.

Performance is not a factor in this.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BPG Image Format by mumblerino on Saturday October 03, 2020 @08:27PM (#24675751)
> Performance is not a factor in this.

What a completely ridiculous statement. Why else would anyone choose BGP if not for performance (i.e. download speed)? The choice to use BGP over a plain old JPG would be made specifically by people who do care.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BPG Image Format by tjoff on Sunday October 04, 2020 @02:55AM (#24677011)
The context here is rendering performance.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BPG Image Format by raindeer3 on Saturday October 03, 2020 @02:56AM (#24670164)
> The web we got today are an astounding feat of not caring about performance in the most aggressive way imaginable.

> Performance is not a factor in this.

If you care about SEO, it does. Check Google's pagespeed test.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BPG Image Format by tjoff on Saturday October 03, 2020 @04:41AM (#24670558)
If that is true then the web does not care about SEO. And quite obviously it isn't weighted particularly hard at all (probably because there wouldn't be anything left).

edit: Case in point, except for google.com (which itself has a terrible score of 62) I can't even find out a single google service that isn't in the reds on the pagespeed index.

Even when it decided to load the mobile version.

[ Parent | on HN ]