I’m building a new website for my company and it’s also my first website at that. My company will use many many images on this website (think between 5-10 images per subpage and most of them need to be able to be viewed in full screen upon click so they’ll need to be 1920px wide). So I figured the best way to keep a good performance is to use webp instead of jpg and co.
However I’m not sure what browser and browser versions our clients use the most and I’m kinda anxious that once it’s launched many clients wont see the images due to their browser not supporting webp. So I saw that you can put in Fallback images with plugins like Ewww.
But does the browser only load the image it can display first or does it load up BOTH files upon opening the page. Cause in the latter case it would basically nullify the benefit of using webp in the first place.
Or maybe I’m simply too paranoid and the amount of users using non-compatible webp browsers is ultra small, I don’t have any real data on that.
[ad_2]
They do not increase load times. Only the amount of disk space used. Else, why would you load webp images instead of unoptimized ones.
WebP support is something like 98%, so I wouldn’t worry too much. The other 2% is all browsers you don’t need to support anyway – IE (dead), kaiOS (flip phones), and extremely old versions of everything else. On any of those browsers WebP is the least of your concerns, half the modern webstack also won’t work.