Jump to content

Burndog

Members
  • Content Count

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Burndog

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Dana Point, CA USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I hear you... But the droning on and on and on.... It's like a petulant child that keeps trying to make some point that they clearly have no clue about and this comes at the cost of everyone else's legitimate statements. IF the comments were from seasoned SEO's then fine. But this is not the case and more clearly chaff, and for what point? Is there some other feature that needs to be incorporated at this moment? Yes, I was rude. Sorry
  2. I'm disputing that you, or your research has ANY helpful bearing in this conversation. Not only does Google want to see webp as an image format, most of the WYSIWYG websites that many beginners use, are converting their uploads to webp. Both Google and these cheesy website creation services are enough weight to show that this is NOT some minor or esoteric request. Again, I don't mean to be rude but please stop wasting space on something you clearly have no real world understanding or experience with.
  3. NO it's not... Get a life and stop wasting space on this thread as you have no clue or dog in this fight.
  4. Why are people that clearly have no idea of what webp is for commenting so much? I don't mean to be rude but why are people clogging this thread with their uniformed comments that don't relate to the purpose of WebP and how it effects SEO and website use?
  5. Google uses website efficiency as a key benefit to ones SEO ranking. So yes, it matters. And as noted, your websites success is based on it being found via search engines, or if not, the site effectively does not exist. We're talking business, not a website of your puppy that only your family knows of. Google is the 1000 pound Gorilla and there is no denying that their edicts are factors we need to consider, whether one likes it or not.
  6. They are the the determining factor if you have a website that you want to be successful. There is no argument to this. If your customers can't find you they you don't exist no matter how unfair you perceive the situation to be.
  7. Bottomline is that Google dictates what is expected and we all need to accept this. Why Google? Because of SEO. IF Google gives benefit to webp due to it's obvious efficiency and then uses this matrix in how they deliver their SERPs, there is no argument.
  8. I use Andriod Studio on my Mac to create WebP from high quality png files: https://developer.android.com/studio Rather disappointed an extra program is needed but we do what we have to do...
  9. Yup, it prevents me from leaving InDesign and moving to all Affinity products.
  10. Files uploaded as well as a new set with single layer version and both exported and downsized images includes. Downsize to 1200px at 85% jpg from both Affinity Photo and Photoshop 2020
  11. Yes, you are correct but it's the same case for all. I have multiple images which show the 3 adjustment blocks all in one file then downsize and animate the results. I can assure you the problem is not related to which image but rather the lack of how an image is downsized and loss of quality that results. I've attached a new sample for clarity and to remove any concerns.
  12. I really like the features of AF Photo where it can build vectors within the same document. But... I'm trying to move from Photoshop and now find that there is a significant issue with image quality when you try to downsize an image. Shooting product and converting to final images sizes for websites is essential in my business. I need full size images for print and downsized image for websites. Take a look at the attached image. Upper right corner is working from the full size and exporting to jog @80% and resizing to the intended 1200 px wide. Terrible results. An improvement is to duplicate the parent document and resize prior to export. That is the example in the upper left corner. Still not very good and shows an overall issue with downsizing images. I've tried all the different options and see little if any difference. Conversely, look at the image in the lower left. THAT is how it should work (Photoshop Export As, resizing on the fly). Is this a known issue that we may see improvement on in the future?
  13. True, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about "Google Pagespeed" which is related to the web. Does the Affinity development team ever weigh in on these discussions? It would be of interest what the difficulties are in implementing webP either natively or as a plugin. For instance, is the format propietary? Is there a licensing fee from Google or?
  14. JPEG XR seems useless unless you're on a Microsoft box: https://caniuse.com/#feat=jpegxr And JPEG 2000 is a Safari only resource: https://caniuse.com/#search=JPEG 2000 Dump both these and add webP would be a better and wiser choice IMHO
  15. It seems that there is little viable argument to ignore webP if Google places favoratism on it in regards to our client's end products. Additionally, the end product/image quality from webP is really good. So regardless of if you like Google or not, webP is an opportunity for Affinity to stay current with its user's requirements (at least those needing to display their images on web browsers and provide SEO for their clients).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.