My short answer: no, WebP ain’t ready for primetime yet.
It’s not used everywhere, not compatible with every device. And if you stick that image in that format, you risk a small percentage of people/devices not being able to see it.
The benefits are what…15-20% space savings?
- But in reality, that’s zero space savings because best practices require you to still have jpeg/png fallbacks in case the visitor isn’t WebP-compatible yet. This means webp would double your media storage use.
Do you think you’re saving on speed?
- Because the answer is NO on that as well. Images may seem like “weight” but most of their load time is due to separated DNS wait times and not so much DOM-processing times.
- The best way to improve website load is still to decrease php processing and mysql queries.
Is there anywhere that I might recommend WebP?
- Sure, maybe if you have a giant picturesque image that needs transparency effect.
- Otherwise, it’s safer for you to stick with the tried-and-true super safe JPEG and PNG.
Still want to use WebP regardless?
- Please do. And tell me all the caveats that you experience.
- I love being on the edge of technology but I’m gonna sit back on this one for a couple more years. š
- You can also read this great post by Steve Teare, who was able to say all the things I was too lazy to: Donāt use webP imageĀ format.
Great reality check…! I also read Steve’s article: spot on. I say that awareness needs to be spread!
Now, we can use it everywhere, it’s compatible with every device.