Thank you - appreciate the reply

 

I'm currently serving webp mages on all my IPS sites using mod_pagespeed.

I would like to use the “Priorize Critical CSS” function of mod_pagespeed to avoid render blocking. Do you use this feature? Does it break IPS or make TTFB to high?

 

I would like to use the “Priorize Critical CSS” function of mod_pagespeed to avoid render blocking. Do you use this feature? Does it break IPS or make TTFB to high?

No idea, had server management install it a while ago. Whatever default settings are, that’s what I’m using. Probably could tweak, but haven’t.

 

No idea, had server management install it a while ago. Whatever default settings are, that’s what I’m using. Probably could tweak, but haven’t.

Do you have a PageSpeed Insight test to show is CSS is render blocking or not?

😀

Can you share a tutorial about this?

Safari 14 now supports .webp https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safari-release-notes/safari-14-beta-release-notes 

How is webp still not a thing in IPBoard?
Google basically forces you into webp with optimisation recommendations.

any update on this? 🙂

Everywhere seems to be using .webp files these days, except Facebook.

It makes using images (which I have permission for) a little difficult when they're downloaded as .webp files and, I then need to convert them to usable images.

 

Everywhere seems to be using .webp files these days, except Facebook.

It makes using images (which I have permission for) a little difficult when they're downloaded as .webp files and, I then need to convert them to usable images.

I use a plugin on my browser (Firefox) to convert back to Jpeg when downloading. I know it exists for Chrome too. I serve .webp files on my site via Cloudflare. Only the cached versions from Cloudflare are .webp, while on my server they remain the original format they have.

 

I use a plugin on my browser (Firefox) to convert back to Jpeg when downloading. I know it exists for Chrome too. I serve .webp files on my site via Cloudflare. Only the cached versions from Cloudflare are .webp, while on my server they remain the original format they have.

Very useful, I'll look into this as it can become quite a chore. 👍🏻

Still nothing? After 5 years? IPS please do sth with that.

It was added in 4.6.x

Not working? Be more specific about what is not working.

And also, ensure that your hosting provides the necessary support for webp:

 

It works only when I add it from insert existing attachment.

Ok - but when does it NOT work. You say "it works only" but if you need assistance with something then you need to tell us what you are doing, and what you want to happen? Otherwise, it's guess-work on our part.

 

 

Ok - but when does it NOT work. You say "it works only" but if you need assistance with something then you need to tell us what you are doing, and what you want to happen? Otherwise, it's guess-work on our part.

I think the general consensus of dissapointment is that WebP support in IPB is limited to file uploads. It doesn't automatically serve reprocessed WebP images to supportive browsers. Which is what would have been expected.

 

I think the general consensus of dissapointment is that WebP support in IPB is limited to file uploads. It doesn't automatically serve reprocessed WebP images to supportive browsers. Which is what would have been expected.

You jump from what you personally expect to “general consensus” way too easily. 

Edited August 12, 20213 yr by opentype

 

You jump from what you personally expect to “general consensus” way too easily. 

It is safe to say that this is indeed a "general consensus".
The wepb is hardly used as such when sending images, users always send in pnj or jpg.
We were also expecting an automatic conversion of existing images in order to reduce bandwidth consumption and loading time.
At least, this is what we have been asking for for several months now.

 

It is safe to say that this is indeed a "general consensus".

Based on what? Because a total of two people in this topic say so? Out of the thousands of IPS clients who you have not consulted? That’s not how consensus works. Not by a long shot. But you win. I shut up. I saw a questionable statement. I questioned it. That’s what my sceptic nature demands. Not gonna debate language on a tech forum. You wouldn’t care anyway. 

 

Based on what?

I’m at fault for initially assuming as well. I don’t see the need (although nice) for uploading as much as “on the fly” conversion and serving to browsers that support. You can achieve this in other ways but would have been a nice feature enhancement for SEO.

 

Sur la base de quoi ? Parce qu'un total de deux personnes dans ce sujet le disent? Sur les milliers de clients IPS que vous n'avez pas consultés ? Ce n'est pas ainsi que fonctionne le consensus. Pas de loin. Mais tu gagnes. Je me tais. J'ai vu une déclaration douteuse. Je l'ai questionné. C'est ce que ma nature sceptique exige. Je ne vais pas débattre de la langue sur un forum technique. Vous vous en ficheriez de toute façon. 

Has the question been asked? 
If we have a subscription, it is to benefit from updates, especially those that help SEO, I do not know anyone who would say no to a gain in search engines and a decrease in bandwidth consumed.
Whether WEPB, PWA, etc. ... It is a regular request from the community, especially for the improvement of referencing and pagespeed scores.