Webp support from WordPress 6.1

vyas

Looks like Wp 6.1 is getting Webp support

https://wptavern.com/webp-by-default-merged-into-core-for-wordpress-6-1

Looks like Shortpixel or similar image conversion tools (that convert to webp) may not be needed. Personally, I optimize and convert image before uploading. Others prefer the tools to do the honours.

What do you guys think? Excited? Disappointed? No opinion???

Chime in.

skorupion

Currently not using wp, but when i was i defenedly converted and optimized everything on the server side, so excited

Ympker

If it gets directly integrated into WP, nice. If not, I still got Shortpixel. Let's see how this goes

MichaelCee

Seems good!

imok

This is nice. I was going to try the webp support from LiteSpeed Cache but not now with these news.

bikegremlin

I just hope we'll be able to disable the option, until enough users do the proper beta-testing (6 months to a year).

imok

I've enabled WebP support using the Performance Lab plugin https://wordpress.org/plugins/performance-lab/ but it says I need to enable something in the web server.

havoc

Nice.

Google study here - basically kicks jpegs ass. Also seems to beat png in most cases

Also liking that it can do both lossy and lossess

vyas

@havoc said:
Nice.

Google study here - basically kicks jpegs ass. Also seems to beat png in most cases

Also liking that it can do both lossy and lossess

Higher resolution images: webp file is bigger than jpg or png in some cases. I have a bunch of 8 mb webP s converted from png (each png was @ 5 or 6 mb). The link I posted also mentions the size issue, so handle with care

Edit:
@BlaZe you might want to read up (ref: message below)

https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/webp-ogp.html

BlaZe

If only the Open Graph Protocol could start using WebP extension

Ryujin

@vyas said:

@havoc said:
Nice.

Google study here - basically kicks jpegs ass. Also seems to beat png in most cases

Also liking that it can do both lossy and lossess

Higher resolution images: webp file is bigger than jpg or png in some cases. I have a bunch of 8 mb webP s converted from png (each png was @ 5 or 6 mb). The link I posted also mentions the size issue, so handle with care

Edit:
@BlaZe you might want to read up (ref: message below)

https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/webp-ogp.html

I think avif format is more useful in the future, sure webp can cut down web pages size by a lot but avif is magical without quality loss, like a 6 - 7 GB gif can be cut down to 200kb.

vyas

@Ryujin said:

@vyas said:

@havoc said:
Nice.

Google study here - basically kicks jpegs ass. Also seems to beat png in most cases

Also liking that it can do both lossy and lossess

Higher resolution images: webp file is bigger than jpg or png in some cases. I have a bunch of 8 mb webP s converted from png (each png was @ 5 or 6 mb). The link I posted also mentions the size issue, so handle with care

Edit:
@BlaZe you might want to read up (ref: message below)

https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/webp-ogp.html

I think avif format is more useful in the future, sure webp can cut down web pages size by a lot but avif is magical without quality loss, like a 6 - 7 GB gif can be cut down to 200kb.

I concur, but webP = google. So will get a much bigger push!

bikegremlin

@vyas said:

@Ryujin said:

@vyas said:

@havoc said:
Nice.

Google study here - basically kicks jpegs ass. Also seems to beat png in most cases

Also liking that it can do both lossy and lossess

Higher resolution images: webp file is bigger than jpg or png in some cases. I have a bunch of 8 mb webP s converted from png (each png was @ 5 or 6 mb). The link I posted also mentions the size issue, so handle with care

Edit:
@BlaZe you might want to read up (ref: message below)

https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/webp-ogp.html

I think avif format is more useful in the future, sure webp can cut down web pages size by a lot but avif is magical without quality loss, like a 6 - 7 GB gif can be cut down to 200kb.

I concur, but webP = google. So will get a much bigger push!

Probably... unless it ends up like AMP.

But yes, it's getting a big push allright.

Though, PNG and JPG when used properly can get very close, if not better (smaller files, with a decent image quality).

havoc

@vyas said: Higher resolution images: webp file is bigger than jpg or png

I don't see why it would depend on resolution?

The encoding blocks are to my knowledge around 16x16 or 8x8...so res wise it should just scale linearly?

BlaZe

@vyas said:
@BlaZe you might want to read up (ref: message below)

https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/webp-ogp.html

I had put all WebP images as OG Image but it wasn't appearing in Facebook Post/Share, FB Messenger nor even on WhatsApp link preview/share. Tried it with Facebook Developer Debugger too and then I found out that it was due to the extension being .webp

Changed it to jpg and it worked.

I think it appeared properly for Twitter Cards though.

bikegremlin

Sybre's comment makes sense:
https://make.wordpress.org/core/2022/06/30/plan-for-adding-webp-multiple-mime-support-for-images/#comment-43276

Quote:
How much weight does a typical site lose serving Google’s WebP over JPEG, (aside from lowering the image fidelity further)? I think it’d be a drop in the ocean, even for those with the worst connections, and I firmly believe this implementation is futile and counterproductive.

Nevertheless the overwhelming negative feedback this proposal will get again, was AVIF considered? How often will we chase “improving” compression formats in the future? How much storage will go to waste (by) then? Why aren’t we teaching people to upload in WebP instead of JPEG? Wasn’t the image upload resolution already limited in WP 5.4 (IIRC)? Isn’t srcset already improving performance tremendously?

Ryujin

@bikegremlin said:
Sybre's comment makes sense:
https://make.wordpress.org/core/2022/06/30/plan-for-adding-webp-multiple-mime-support-for-images/#comment-43276

Quote:
How much weight does a typical site lose serving Google’s WebP over JPEG, (aside from lowering the image fidelity further)? I think it’d be a drop in the ocean, even for those with the worst connections, and I firmly believe this implementation is futile and counterproductive.

Nevertheless the overwhelming negative feedback this proposal will get again, was AVIF considered? How often will we chase “improving” compression formats in the future? How much storage will go to waste (by) then? Why aren’t we teaching people to upload in WebP instead of JPEG? Wasn’t the image upload resolution already limited in WP 5.4 (IIRC)? Isn’t srcset already improving performance tremendously?

The quality loss is minimal, avif is even amazing with almost no quality loss but understandable that it is not been added yet as it's something for the future.

bikegremlin

@Ryujin said:

@bikegremlin said:
Sybre's comment makes sense:
https://make.wordpress.org/core/2022/06/30/plan-for-adding-webp-multiple-mime-support-for-images/#comment-43276

Quote:
How much weight does a typical site lose serving Google’s WebP over JPEG, (aside from lowering the image fidelity further)? I think it’d be a drop in the ocean, even for those with the worst connections, and I firmly believe this implementation is futile and counterproductive.

Nevertheless the overwhelming negative feedback this proposal will get again, was AVIF considered? How often will we chase “improving” compression formats in the future? How much storage will go to waste (by) then? Why aren’t we teaching people to upload in WebP instead of JPEG? Wasn’t the image upload resolution already limited in WP 5.4 (IIRC)? Isn’t srcset already improving performance tremendously?

The quality loss is minimal, avif is even amazing with almost no quality loss but understandable that it is not been added yet as it's something for the future.

Yes, but is WebP worth the trouble? Read this "jewel" from the start of the linked blog, quote:

To assess the overall impact of generating WebP images on site storage, the team surveyed hosting providers. With a total of 17 responses, the results show that the number of stored files is generally not an issue for most hosts/sites, although storage space could become an issue for some users over time. Still, for large hosts (with 1,000 or more hosted sites), the vast majority of sites (> 86%) would be unaffected, even if their storage requirements doubled. We also learned that some lower-end hosting plans with limited storage also lack WebP support in their hosting stack, which means they won’t get extra image generation anyway.

My comment (here, not on the linked site):
WP makes several different-sized image files out of every uploaded image already. By default. I've disabled that option because it piles up with 2 to 4 times the number of files for the stuff I won't even use (WP is still not smart to automatically load the optimal image size based on the user's screen, it just lets you chooose the size you want when you write in the backend).

Now, they'll add a WebP file coppies on top of that!

It's wasteful. Storage space and the number of files affect backup and restore times and, well, the needed backup storage space.

And good luck to anyone using DirectAdmin's file manager with a not-super-fast Internet connection to browse an image uploads directory of an active site with lots of articles and images.

To me, this looks like a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist - by introducing more potential problems.

They should have put that time and energy elsewhere (my opinion, looking from the sides, I know it's easier said that done and no disrespect for the effort). For example, the media upload interface could mimic Squoosh.app, or be even better, allowing for bulk imports, adding watermark etc. Make it as idiot-friendly as possible.

This looks like effort for the effort sake, that might look good with generic page-speed tests so they can tap themselves on the shoulder.

Again, I understand it's a lot of work and many people volunteer their time. But I think this kind of criticism is constructive and helpful (could be wrong, but that's my intention anyway).

bikegremlin

Here are some interesting facts (and workarounds) related to the current WordPress image auto-creation (disabling).

And my thoughts on WordPress 6.1 default WebP image format creation.

havoc

@bikegremlin said: How often will we chase “improving” compression formats in the future?

For a long time hopefully. The path from bad BMP compression to today has been one of incremental improvements.

bikegremlin

@havoc said:

@bikegremlin said: How often will we chase “improving” compression formats in the future?

For a long time hopefully. The path from bad BMP compression to today has been one of incremental improvements.

The cost, when using WordPress, is a ton of unused files.
A change should be worth the effort (ideally with the "tools" to clean up the old stuff).

vyas

Update:
Apparently, developers rebelled and the plan for Webp as default for WP 6.1 is put on hold.

BlaZe

@vyas said:
Update:
Apparently, developers rebelled and the plan for Webp as default for WP 6.1 is put on hold.

God bless the developers!

bikegremlin

Yes - we're safe... for now.

Mat with two "T"s wrote an "official" ** statement on this:
https://make.wordpress.org/core/2022/09/11/webp-in-core-for-6-1/

** "official" = "this is what we want you to think that we think"