webp is not a supported extension of the Gallery by default.

Suddenly it's 2018.

This isn't directed at you Jim, but at the decision-makers at IPS as a whole.

The fact that a vendor of web-based photo gallery software doesn't officially support WebP in 2024 is, frankly, absurd.

And it's absurd for several reasons:

1. It clearly works. I wasn't even aware that webp wasn't officially supported (or I didn't remember) because I've been uploading webp to my galleries for a while now, and it has been working nicely, and will continue to work nicely in their new S3 home.
2. The standard was announced in 2010 and went to stable release in 2018. There's been 8 years to get onboard.
3. Much of the web has been using it for years, especially the big, picture heavy sites.
4. The search engines penalize us for using heavy images and I personally see a significant performance difference on my own site with webp.
5. The only thing that broke here was that I moved storage locations, and the url update task isn't processing the new location properly. The images are still attached properly to the article, they just aren't embedded correctly.

 

 

 

Suddenly it's 2018.

This isn't directed at you Jim, but at the decision-makers at IPS as a whole.

The fact that a vendor of web-based photo gallery software doesn't officially support WebP in 2024 is, frankly, absurd.

And it's absurd for several reasons:

1. It clearly works. I wasn't even aware that webp wasn't officially supported (or I didn't remember) because I've been uploading webp to my galleries for a while now, and it has been working nicely, and will continue to work nicely in their new S3 home.
2. The standard was announced in 2010 and went to stable release in 2018. There's been 8 years to get onboard.
3. Much of the web has been using it for years, especially the big, picture heavy sites.
4. The search engines penalize us for using heavy images and I personally see a significant performance difference on my own site with webp.
5. The only thing that broke here was that I moved storage locations, and the url update task isn't processing the new location properly. The images are still attached properly to the article, they just aren't embedded correctly.

 

 

While I understand what you're stating here, I would advise putting in a suggestion in the Feedback forum. As this is the support forum, there is very little from a standpoint of support we can do to assist as currently, it is not supported.

 

While I understand what you're stating here, I would advise putting in a suggestion in the Feedback forum. As this is the support forum, there is very little from a standpoint of support we can do to assist as currently, it is not supported.

Please move this to the feedback thread then.

 

Thank you.

Please be advised I have split this off for you to the Feedback forum.