Everade

It doesn't work flawlessly for all image types in every situation. There are lots of cases where it simply doesn't work.
Been actively using it since quite a while and it doesn't solve the main issue, which is that invision doesn't allow upload of specific image types as an actual image.
It also doesn't allow us to optimize the compression, not globaly nor per image.
First step should always be to fix the actual problem, and not look for the quickest workaround.
AV1 (AVIF) is just another great format that's not supported by invision, however it's a younger format.
Originaly a video coding format with its final image specifications just finalized back in february 2019 if i'm not mistaken.

Please note that webp is out there in the wild since >10 years by now.
And there are people out there who're itching for invision's implementation since several years.

Yes, absolutely. Directly linking it within the editor works just fine, just like with webp.
Also uploading into the editor works just fine, that's great.

But you're missing out that we can not upload it as an "image".

How about webm as:
- Profile picture
- Bug Report "image" upload on your custom PAGES
- Cover Photo
- Forum Icon
- Grid Card Image

That's what you get:

 
 
What i'm asking for is, enabling mp4, webm uploads in all IMAGE locations and simply generate fake GIFs using:
Just like Twitter, Giphy, Instagram and all the other big players do.
<video autoplay loop muted playsinline> <source src="fakegif.webm" type="video/webm"> </video>  

1.) Display webp as image instead of attachment (handle them just like all other image types)
2.) Allow webp as image upload option in all areas (Profile Picture, Cover Photo, Forum Icon, Grid Card Image, Pages when posting content and anywhere else that i've missed)


 
Repeat the steps for .WEBM (would be lovely since video compression is in most cases superior to animated images such as GIF and WEBP)
Would be really great to be able to be able to upload video format types in all the mentioned areas (Profile Pictures, Cover Photo, but especialy Pages)
 
3.) Add an option to swap all png images (profile content and/or uploads and forum core pictures) to webp instead with a conversion job that processes all images. (That's the bigger work i guess, but would be amazing to have.)
This would ultimately reduce the data usage by tremendous bounds, save bandwith and improve performance.
 

Regarding WEBM and MP4:
https://web.dev/replace-gifs-with-videos/
It's so much better than gif, would be amazing to have support for these.

1.) Display webp as image instead of attachment (handle them just like all other image types)
2.) Allow webp as image upload option in all areas (Profile Picture, Cover Photo, Forum Icon, Grid Card Image, Pages when posting content and anywhere else that i've missed)


 
Repeat the steps for .WEBM (would be lovely since video compression is in most cases superior to animated images such as GIF and WEBP)
Would be really great to be able to be able to upload video format types in all the mentioned areas (Profile Pictures, Cover Photo, but especialy Pages)
 
3.) Add an option to swap all png images (profile content and/or uploads and forum core pictures) to webp instead with a conversion job that processes all images. (That's the bigger work i guess, but would be amazing to have.)
This would ultimately reduce the data usage by tremendous bounds, save bandwith and improve performance.
 

Why are invisioncommunity devs so blind for webp?

It's not like it requires any other extra work, since the compression of webp is already existant by nature.
Simply allowing webp by default shouldn't be the biggest deal, or is it?
It's already widely accepted by all major browsers, so there's no excuse on that anymore, especially not since you dropped IE support yourselfs.
But still, every request and any conversation about webp have either been put down, or ignored.

Could we please get an explanation why you're so anti-fast-web?
I'm honestly wondering why is that.
 
I'm also wondering if the spacer.png image load implementation is still best practice either.
Wouldn't it make more sense to add native lazy loading instead?
Really keen to live up to todays SEO standards and performance requirements.

Yes please, the impact can actualy be quite extensive.

Please also add lazy loading for the "Ranks" system which allows image uploads. ?app=core&module=membersettings&controller=ranks
forums/admin/?app=core&module=membersettings&controller=ranks
They're also missing lazy loading. ~

Of course, that's absolutely possible, but the point here is that i don't want to mess with the template all the time, but get it "fixed" in the main release instead.
I use IPB because i want something i can rely on without the need to code, change or modify it all by myself and then fix it up again after every single IPB patch manualy.
So having things works natively is always the best way to go.
 
 
@Adlago Yea i noticed. I also noticed that in hundreds of topics (especially older ones) chrome (and google webmaster tools) reports performance issues on any posted image and whatnot simply because it doesn't seem to work properly. Chrome recognizes it as missing "lazy loading" and results in bad performance ratings eitherway. Not good for SEO ratings from what i can tell.
Would prefer to get the data-src solution being replaced with native lazy loading which is widely supported by now.

Cloudflare isn't capable of xxx to webp conversion in a dynamic website environment.  For example javascript.
Accessing the image directly might work, but Cloudflare has lots of issues when it comes to dynamic content.
This has nothing to do with the fact that not all images are optimized, but because Cloudflare isn't capable of handling certain cases.
CDN is always a great addition to automation and optimizations.
But it doesn't allow for much flexibility.
And how exactly do you think i'm saving processing power or storage, when i'm uploading a 10mb png vs a 5mb webp?
What has any of this to do with processing power?
webp is widely supported so double uploads are not really required. I'm not wasting space, i'm saving space with webp support.

Is Cloudflare flexible enough to optimize the webp compression per image? No.
Does it allow us to upload webp to invision? No 😉
I'm pretty certain that i'm at the InvisionCommunity here, and not at Cloudflare.
So please let it rest so we finally get the much needed webp support.
Thank you.

Sounds like you're just trying to annoy a handful of people who're not kind by nature, and end up sacrificing the patience of the kind majority.

Have you considered introducing Lazy Loading for Profile Photos? This would help with page loading speed, If someone uses GIF or a lot of weighty pictures.

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

Why are invisioncommunity devs so blind for webp?

It's not like it requires any other extra work, since the compression of webp is already existant by nature.
Simply allowing webp by default shouldn't be the biggest deal, or is it?
It's already widely accepted by all major browsers, so there's no excuse on that anymore, especially not since you dropped IE support yourselfs.
But still, every request and any conversation about webp have either been put down, or ignored.

Could we please get an explanation why you're so anti-fast-web?
I'm honestly wondering why is that.
 
I'm also wondering if the spacer.png image load implementation is still best practice either.
Wouldn't it make more sense to add native lazy loading instead?
Really keen to live up to todays SEO standards and performance requirements.

You never bothered to read the main thread, obviously.
I've never asked for png to webp conversion with double savings for backwards compatibility, but for webp upload possibility and being actualy recognized as an image.
What you're talking about is an entirely different story.

This was never supposed to be nor become a debate, you're just offtopic.
Learn to read, accept the future.

Why are invisioncommunity devs so blind for webp?

It's not like it requires any other extra work, since the compression of webp is already existant by nature.
Simply allowing webp by default shouldn't be the biggest deal, or is it?
It's already widely accepted by all major browsers, so there's no excuse on that anymore, especially not since you dropped IE support yourselfs.
But still, every request and any conversation about webp have either been put down, or ignored.

Could we please get an explanation why you're so anti-fast-web?
I'm honestly wondering why is that.
 
I'm also wondering if the spacer.png image load implementation is still best practice either.
Wouldn't it make more sense to add native lazy loading instead?
Really keen to live up to todays SEO standards and performance requirements.

1.) Display webp as image instead of attachment (handle them just like all other image types)
2.) Allow webp as image upload option in all areas (Profile Picture, Cover Photo, Forum Icon, Grid Card Image, Pages when posting content and anywhere else that i've missed)


 
Repeat the steps for .WEBM (would be lovely since video compression is in most cases superior to animated images such as GIF and WEBP)
Would be really great to be able to be able to upload video format types in all the mentioned areas (Profile Pictures, Cover Photo, but especialy Pages)
 
3.) Add an option to swap all png images (profile content and/or uploads and forum core pictures) to webp instead with a conversion job that processes all images. (That's the bigger work i guess, but would be amazing to have.)
This would ultimately reduce the data usage by tremendous bounds, save bandwith and improve performance.
 

Why are invisioncommunity devs so blind for webp?

It's not like it requires any other extra work, since the compression of webp is already existant by nature.
Simply allowing webp by default shouldn't be the biggest deal, or is it?
It's already widely accepted by all major browsers, so there's no excuse on that anymore, especially not since you dropped IE support yourselfs.
But still, every request and any conversation about webp have either been put down, or ignored.

Could we please get an explanation why you're so anti-fast-web?
I'm honestly wondering why is that.
 
I'm also wondering if the spacer.png image load implementation is still best practice either.
Wouldn't it make more sense to add native lazy loading instead?
Really keen to live up to todays SEO standards and performance requirements.

You never bothered to read the main thread, obviously.
I've never asked for png to webp conversion with double savings for backwards compatibility, but for webp upload possibility and being actualy recognized as an image.
What you're talking about is an entirely different story.

This was never supposed to be nor become a debate, you're just offtopic.
Learn to read, accept the future.

It doesn't work flawlessly for all image types in every situation. There are lots of cases where it simply doesn't work.
Been actively using it since quite a while and it doesn't solve the main issue, which is that invision doesn't allow upload of specific image types as an actual image.
It also doesn't allow us to optimize the compression, not globaly nor per image.
First step should always be to fix the actual problem, and not look for the quickest workaround.
AV1 (AVIF) is just another great format that's not supported by invision, however it's a younger format.
Originaly a video coding format with its final image specifications just finalized back in february 2019 if i'm not mistaken.

Please note that webp is out there in the wild since >10 years by now.
And there are people out there who're itching for invision's implementation since several years.

Cloudflare isn't capable of xxx to webp conversion in a dynamic website environment.  For example javascript.
Accessing the image directly might work, but Cloudflare has lots of issues when it comes to dynamic content.
This has nothing to do with the fact that not all images are optimized, but because Cloudflare isn't capable of handling certain cases.
CDN is always a great addition to automation and optimizations.
But it doesn't allow for much flexibility.
And how exactly do you think i'm saving processing power or storage, when i'm uploading a 10mb png vs a 5mb webp?
What has any of this to do with processing power?
webp is widely supported so double uploads are not really required. I'm not wasting space, i'm saving space with webp support.

Is Cloudflare flexible enough to optimize the webp compression per image? No.
Does it allow us to upload webp to invision? No 😉
I'm pretty certain that i'm at the InvisionCommunity here, and not at Cloudflare.
So please let it rest so we finally get the much needed webp support.
Thank you.

Might be rare case for you. For me it isn't. It really isn't.
Just because cloudflare is the perfect solution for your personal project doesn't mean that it fits everyone.
Is it great overall? Absolutely. But it's not perfect.

Cloudflare might be great at optimization, but it doesn't KNOW nor SEE how the image looks like.
As such i prefer personal compression for optimal results. A machine doesn't understand images nor art. At least not for now.
In my case, Cloudflare only catches those pieces i haven't optimized myself.
I can save more space with personal optimizations where i want, and i can have the best qualitiy where i want.
Cloudflare is an image optimization fallback for me, not a solution.
 
Safari isn't an up to date browser, it's heavily outdated just like IE. I don't support that.
You do, others do, great, why not. I don't.
For me: double upload is at no point ever required. I save lots of space with webp.

And i repeat:
Cloudflare has nothing to do with the fact that we cannot upload webp as images to invision, anywhere at all.
-> Cloudflare doesn't fix the problem discussed in this topic.

Yes Cloudflare is glorious, i love it and use it too.
But it does not fix the very core of this topic and as such, shouldn't be discussed here.
It's a great hint for people who don't know about it.
But again:
It doesn't fix the problem discussed in this topic.

I understand that you don't need webp image upload support.
But others might. At least i do.

me: Alright?
you: Alright

k, thx, bye.

Yes, absolutely. Directly linking it within the editor works just fine, just like with webp.
Also uploading into the editor works just fine, that's great.

But you're missing out that we can not upload it as an "image".

How about webm as:
- Profile picture
- Bug Report "image" upload on your custom PAGES
- Cover Photo
- Forum Icon
- Grid Card Image

That's what you get:

 
 
What i'm asking for is, enabling mp4, webm uploads in all IMAGE locations and simply generate fake GIFs using:
Just like Twitter, Giphy, Instagram and all the other big players do.
<video autoplay loop muted playsinline> <source src="fakegif.webm" type="video/webm"> </video>  

Thanks for hearing me out, appreciate it.

Hope next to webp ,both webm +mp4 is being considered for "image" uploads in form of faking GIFs as well!
Please note that:
Twitter and Co. are faking GIFs as looping MP4 or WEBP videos since quite a while.
Video format compressions are simply superior in any way. And a user can't tell the difference.
Here's an example of a twitter post which has been uploaded as a GIF and shows as such in the bottom left corner.
 
And here's the actual source as a mp4:
https://video.twimg.com/tweet_video/EjB_QLaXYAEvrOB.mp4
 
 
If a webp or mp4 video is being uploaded within your image upload sections.
You could simply detect the file format and then use the looping video tag accordingly:
 
<video autoplay loop muted playsinline> <source src="fakegif.webm" type="video/webm"> <source src="fakegif.mp4" type="video/mp4"> </video>  
Just like the <picture> tag you've mentioned, it offers fallback options if needed.
Another option would be to convert gifs into webm and so forth...
 
Hope it helps 😉

Why are invisioncommunity devs so blind for webp?

It's not like it requires any other extra work, since the compression of webp is already existant by nature.
Simply allowing webp by default shouldn't be the biggest deal, or is it?
It's already widely accepted by all major browsers, so there's no excuse on that anymore, especially not since you dropped IE support yourselfs.
But still, every request and any conversation about webp have either been put down, or ignored.

Could we please get an explanation why you're so anti-fast-web?
I'm honestly wondering why is that.
 
I'm also wondering if the spacer.png image load implementation is still best practice either.
Wouldn't it make more sense to add native lazy loading instead?
Really keen to live up to todays SEO standards and performance requirements.

Why are invisioncommunity devs so blind for webp?

It's not like it requires any other extra work, since the compression of webp is already existant by nature.
Simply allowing webp by default shouldn't be the biggest deal, or is it?
It's already widely accepted by all major browsers, so there's no excuse on that anymore, especially not since you dropped IE support yourselfs.
But still, every request and any conversation about webp have either been put down, or ignored.

Could we please get an explanation why you're so anti-fast-web?
I'm honestly wondering why is that.
 
I'm also wondering if the spacer.png image load implementation is still best practice either.
Wouldn't it make more sense to add native lazy loading instead?
Really keen to live up to todays SEO standards and performance requirements.