JPEG Progressive

[Sunjammer]

I suspect you feel ‘really surprised’ every time you meet someone who doesn’t share each and every one of your necessities, inclinations, frustrations and beliefs

That's not at all the case.

It was an opportunity for you to say why progressive jpeg was still relevant today and useful to you. I am surprised because it's been ages (years, probably) since I've come across anyone mentioning progressive jpeg in any context.

Perhaps next time don't assume the motivations for people's posts and use the opportunity to enlighten those who don't necessarily see the relevance of progressive jpeg today.

The fact is… it wasn’t. I don’t need to show you nothing, unless you ask for it properly; actually, respectfully I don’t see the need of explaining why I need the progressive jpeg export option because the reason is the same one that applied ten years ago. I suggested in my response that in this day and age everyone has broadband access to Internet, but that’s not truth: you can read the irony. Broadband access is not so extended worldwide as we would like to think, and we should not assume the opposite.
I wouldn’t expect anyone to mention progressive jpeg in any context because it’s simply a standard feature of any graphic software, and the few of us who have used it for years have enjoyed it with no problems: Xara offered the option till a few years ago. You don’t need to use it if you don’t want to; it tends to be disabled by default, but it happens I personally activate it every time I export a picture (as I do with interlaced PNG, even if it isn’t always a good idea: but I appreciate the option and I take advantage of it whenever I think it improves the user experience).

I am really sorry if you felt genuinely surprised by my request —which is, as I said, of enough importance for me to come back one year later to reopen a dead thread—, and I would have offered an explanation if requested in a clear way, but your emphatic style: anyone still using (or wants to) sounded dubious to me. With all due respect (and I really mean it), your surprise is your business, not mine. But I take your word at face value and offer my excuses.

Yet: I would want to see progressive jpeg back in Xara PGD. Of course I assume this is not going to happen.

PS: I don’t think photographic gifs and progressive jpegs are comparable issues: progressive jpeg files offer objective advantages; I don’t think the same could be said about p.g.

PS2: By the way: I few days ago I had to open IrfanView (IrfanView!) to batch process a few jpegs exported from Xara just to convert them to progressive. Sorry, but this sound like a joke.

[pauland]

I'll paraphrase:

"I want to use it because I want to make the internet a better experience for people not on broadband."

Fair enough, though in practice everyone else's websites are getting more graphics heavy and I suspect that anyone on very low bandwidth connections will go for text-only access. Maybe you have a specific following on your site from people with poor bandwidth. Who knows.

[Sunjammer]

I'll paraphrase:

"I want to use it because I want to make the internet a better experience for people not on broadband."

Fair enough, though in practice everyone else's websites are getting more graphics heavy and I suspect that anyone on very low bandwidth connections will go for text-only access. Maybe you have a specific following on your site from people with poor bandwidth. Who knows.

I didn’t intend to convert this conversation in a debate about the reasons why using progressive jpeg is a good idea; I just offered one to show that there are motives worthy of consideration for Xara developers to reinstate the option. But it is, indeed, a mistake to think that we should stretch to its limits our audience’s broadband just because we can: even today, when we (some of we) enjoy superfast and limitless Internet access in hour homes, we have limited mobile data plans. Maybe one single progressive jpeg file only saves a few kilobytes, but we rarely add one single picture to our webpages. At the same time —and this is absolutely true for me, possibly not for you—, the incremental scanning of progressive jpeg files is today as useful as it was five years ago: I hate* to see that blink that happens when the download of a baseline jpeg file has ended: the progressive alternative is much more organic. If I can avoid the ‘blink’, it’s my intention to avoid it: I just need some help from my graphic software of choice. Maybe there’s a philosophy behind my attitude regarding this issue, and why not? Why to compress and minimize css files, and javascript files, and why to limit the number of web fonts used in our websites, if internet access is not a serious consideration anymore?
*I’ve used this word deliberately. I really hate it. Perhaps THE VAST MAJORITY of my websites’ visitors don’t notice the ‘blink’, but some do, as I myself do. The thing is this: those who do will appreciate the progressive scanning; those who don’t simply will not notice it. It looks like a win-win situation to me. Certainly nobody loses.

[Fin]

Here's a good article on the subject that sheds light on the pros and cons: http://www.webmonkey.com/2013/01/the...gressive-jpeg/

[Egg Bramhill]

Interesting article Fin.

Personally I think this thread is about very little. If you want to create progressive jpg's just import the image/vectors into an earlier vesrion of Xara and export from there, no big deal. Less than 10% of jpg's on the web are progressive and it appears not all mobile browsers accomodate them, so the 'advantages' are still hard to quantify.

I'd far rather Xara concentrated on new features like creating Image Sprites to achieve quicker image delivery.

[jaydear]

There's an informative blog worth a look at http://blog.patrickmeenan.com/2013/0...jpegs-ftw.html

[Egg Bramhill]

Saw that a bit earlier Jay. Agree it's informative but hardly definitive. Non of the links I've viewed come down firmly in favour of either option.

[jaydear]

Yes, I agree, but a fair way down that blog there is a suggestion that mobile devices may be pushed for processor power and/or RAM when opening progressive jpg's... so 1 x negative... maybe.

[Sunjammer]

Interesting article Fin.

Personally I think this thread is about very little. If you want to create progressive jpg's just import the image/vectors into an earlier vesrion of Xara and export from there, no big deal. Less than 10% of jpg's on the web are progressive and it appears not all mobile browsers accomodate them, so the 'advantages' are still hard to quantify.

I'd far rather Xara concentrated on new features like creating Image Sprites to achieve quicker image delivery.

Better still: I could save my files in 3,5” floppy disks, send them by sea to some remote conradian enclave where a midget could convert them into progressive jpeg images; then he would send it back to me and, six months later, I would have in my hands a brand new progressive jpeg file! If efficiency is not an issue, frankly, I don’t see any reason not to push the limits. Then of course the average graphic software offers the progressive export option…

[gwpriester]

Bottom line, Xara does not currently support progressive JPEGs. The point is made. Let's move on and stop flogging a dead horse.