News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by djtriptych on Monday June 28, 2021 @03:48PM (#27666931)
WebP is good iff it improves rendering times (which it does). That's not google's fault really. Any way you can come up with to optimize images is valid under Core Web Vitals. I really don't think any of it is skewed towards Google's solutions except the testing/measurement methodology. I would love open source data collection across browsers for instance.

Lazy-loading can be implemented sloppily, but browser-native lazy loading is now good enough to be considered optimal.

Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by WillPostForFood on Monday June 28, 2021 @06:51PM (#27669324)
browser-native lazy loading is now good enough to be considered optimal

The problem is that Google Page Speed dings you for not having lazy loading, and people add crappy JavaScript lazy loading that satisfies Google, but makes the user experience worse.

WebP is good iff it improves rendering times (which it does). That's not google's fault really.

The problem has been, until recently, Safari didn't support WebP, so you had to implement a fallback to jpg. More complicated HTML, more images to compress and manage, all for a very marginal improvement.

Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by hexa22 on Monday June 28, 2021 @11:16PM (#27671313)
Most sites would use the user agent for this but I’m pretty sure HTML now has a picture tag which can have multiple sources so the browser can pick the source it wants.
Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by snowwrestler on Monday June 28, 2021 @10:03PM (#27670836)
How does WebP improve rendering times?
Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by hexa22 on Monday June 28, 2021 @11:17PM (#27671317)
It takes less space so it downloads faster.