Sorry! This post has been deleted by its original author.
Don't squeeze me, I fart
- she/her
- dinobird.website/
Things that make you go 🤌. Weird computer stuff. Artist and general creative type. Occasionally funny. Gentoo on main. I play rhythm games!
.png "Cohost PLUS!")
You can post SVG files like photos on this website! Spread the word!
You must log in to comment.
in reply to @noracodes's post:
I think a lot of people's opinions about webp formed before it started to become widely supported in desktop software. That is, to me, where the emotional core of the opinions about webp come from: you downloading an image and finding out its useless to you with your current suite of software, and then you find out Google is involved, and then it just goes downhill from there.
As of right now, of the image editors I use, both Photoshop, paint.net do support webp but they only added it last year. Illustrator can open it but not export and Inkscape doesn't deal with it at all. I think the attitudes to webp make sense in context. It might be a better format, but for a while it's only been more convenient for people distributing images than those consuming them.
that absolutely makes sense to me from an emotional perspective, but when people #OnHere are saying things like " what's the appeal, why should i switch" when, in fact, it compresses better, looks better, and has more features... i dunno. "i think we should suffer lesser compression ratios to starve google of adoption" is a perfectly valid perspective, but it's not what's being actually expressed.
in reply to @noracodes's post:
proprietary software not supporting it is evidence that that thing is no good. unless Google doesn't support it, in which case it's evidence that that thing is good