JPG vs. PNG vs. GIF vs. SVG
uxdesign.cc
JPG vs. PNG vs. GIF vs. SVG
1–10 of 77 posts
Re: JPG vs. PNG vs. GIF vs. SVG
#2The "burn it with fire" option for gradient logos and bathroom selfies makes this chart much less useful.
Re: JPG vs. PNG vs. GIF vs. SVG
#3Quite ironic that the chart (PNG by the way) does not even render in Firefox.
Re: JPG vs. PNG vs. GIF vs. SVG
#4The "burn it with fire" option for gradient logos and bathroom selfies makes this chart much less useful.
Yes. The much more environment friendly option would be to recycle the image. But I guess nobody cares about that anymore!
Re: JPG vs. PNG vs. GIF vs. SVG
#5It's 2019. Frontend developers who aren't using picture tags with WebP and a fallback alternative need to update their HTML knowledge.
Re: JPG vs. PNG vs. GIF vs. SVG
#6This chart offers some dubious suggestions, even ignoring the "Burn it with fire" bit. Unfortunately, it doesn't explain any of its reasoning.
A photograph that's not real big is probably still better suited for JPG. And there's no reason to use GIF for any still image - PNG will be superior in all situations. A moving image may be better off as an MP4 for modern browsers in terms of file size and quality, but there's no mention of that here.
Re: JPG vs. PNG vs. GIF vs. SVG
#7There's no real reason to use a gif over png for non-animated images. You'll have bloated filesizes and a limited color pallette.
Re: JPG vs. PNG vs. GIF vs. SVG
#8Not a bad chart.
I can imagine it a bit more useful and less cluttered by removing bathroom selfies. Yet I understand the viral element: Burn it with fire!
Re: JPG vs. PNG vs. GIF vs. SVG
#9Not a bad chart. I can imagine it a bit more useful and less cluttered by removing bathroom selfies. Yet I understand the viral element: Burn it with fire!
how is it not bad ? it is absolutely not useful and the advices are misguided.
Re: JPG vs. PNG vs. GIF vs. SVG
#10burn the chart with fire