Which update and what version to do it to

[Lynnzer]

Neither are covered yet through Magix. XDPX is the Daddy of XWDP so if I was going for one I would go for XDPX.

However, for the same price as an XDPX Magix Upgrade, you can get Xara Pro+ by using the LIFETIME coupon offer for almost the same charge.
This is a subscription and Pro+ is XDPX but many updates ahead.

If at the end of the year's subscription you want to revert back to Magix, I am sure WebP will be available by then.

Fuller details here: https://www.talkgraphics.com/showthr...415#post636415.

Acorn

I have an email from Xara saying WebDesigner Pro + will support webp files from April 22nd. It then says "With the release of Web Core Vitals in May 2021, loading speed will be even MORE important for SEO." So it looks as if May will be the date for support of webp rather than 22nd April, or perhaps when the need for it becomes more important.
Is it being included in any new upgrade right now or would it be necessary to buy a complete new program.
I downloaded a trial version of WDP+ and tried to import a webp file and it says it doesn't support that format. Very confusing.....

Also, when I click the UPGRADE on the trial version it gives prices in $'s but the same figure is then shown exactly the same when I change to £'s. Discrimination or what?
Maybe it would be less expensive to take another trial for another email address and do all the downloads etc via a VPN.

[Initiostar]

I have an email from Xara saying Web Designer Pro + will support WebP files from April 22nd. It then says "With the release of Web Core Vitals in May 2021, loading speed will be even MORE important for SEO." So it looks as if May will be the date for support of WebP rather than 22nd April, or perhaps when the need for it becomes more important.

Web Core Vitals is a description of Google's updated approach to SEO (among broader recommendations) - Google Web Core Vitals.

Xara's support for WebP is long overdue and like most Xara enhancements it will appear in Web Designer Pro+ first; it will eventually (we trust) filter down into Web Designer Premium and Web Designer Pro (the latter two being distributed by Magix though authored by Xara).

WebP is important, but if your site is not 'mobile friendly' and does not have an SSL certificate (gives you https), I'd be making sure these issues were addressed too.

A good starting point is to 'inspect' your site in a Chrome Browser (right click on the page and pick inspect); then run the Google 'Lighthouse' test. It's a very useful part of the Developer Tools - when you've achieved 4 GREEN circles you're on the right track.

Gary

[Acorn]

I have an email from Xara saying WebDesigner Pro + will support webp files from April 22nd. It then says "With the release of Web Core Vitals in May 2021, loading speed will be even MORE important for SEO." So it looks as if May will be the date for support of webp rather than 22nd April, or perhaps when the need for it becomes more important.
Is it being included in any new upgrade right now or would it be necessary to buy a complete new program.
I downloaded a trial version of WDP+ and tried to import a webp file and it says it doesn't support that format. Very confusing.....

Also, when I click the UPGRADE on the trial version it gives prices in $'s but the same figure is then shown exactly the same when I change to £'s. Discrimination or what?
Maybe it would be less expensive to take another trial for another email address and do all the downloads etc via a VPN.

WebP is supported in two way: (1) You can explicitly Export WebP for any shapes; (2) your website will render WebP over PNG/JPEG if the viewer's browser can handle them (automatically).

What is not yet available is the Import of WebP images but Xara has stated this is coming soon.

So, with Xara Pro+, WebP rendering has arrived and will assist in overall performance benefit (as detailed by @Initiostar above).

Yes, both Xara and Magix (and many others) abuse the relative exchange rates, seemingly with impunity.
One day, some regulator will nail them all and we will get a few drachmas back.
Meantime, when paying through your card, you could check to see it that handles foreign currencies more cheaply.

I think you have failied to fully understand the difference between the Magix and Xara direct offerings.

WebP is currently only with Xara Pro+, which is a subscription.
You are automatically upgraded during the subscription.

Magix's XDPX is a way behind. You will get WebP when Magix decides.
It will wait until the majority of its customers will need to renew their Update Service.

Neither route requires you to purchase an new program.

Finally, why would you even consider abusing the Xara/Magix trials by hiding behind different email addresses and VPN?
If you are a hobbyist then £10/m is cheap for a hobby. If you are a website builder, you recoup your Xara cost in one professional sale.
Xara is even offering an Affiliate route at 20% back to you for each referral.

Acorn

P.S. There is no beast called " WebDesigner Pro +".

[Lynnzer]

OK then. I paid for the Xara Pro+ today. As you say, the price isn't over the top for the things I get.
Just another webp question though. I do have some files of that nature and as expected from the explanation I can't drag and drop them onto a page.
So, the rendering is done by Xara from jpeg or png? How does that impact on a sites Google scrutiny? If anyone's browser can't handle webp the page loading will take longer when it's rich in images. It's that very thing I want to avoid. I know there are dozens of things that can impact page speed but I want to nail this on the head. If Xara has the option to render, then surely it must have duplicate images in the file system, or is the rendering done at time of page load and if so then that must also surely slow page opening thus removing the advantage of small image file size.
Finally, can you point me to a site where webp images are shown in webp for supported browsers so I can compare them to a non supported browser.

The funny thing is that even the images on Xara's own website show as png's so perhaps they are blowing a lot of smoke on website rendering. Or maybe they aren't using Xara Pro+ themselves????

[Egg Bramhill]

Or maybe they aren't using Xara Pro+ themselves????

That's correct.

So, the rendering is done by Xara from jpeg or png?

Correct.

If anyone's browser can't handle webp the page loading will take longer when it's rich in images. It's that very thing I want to avoid. I know there are dozens of things that can impact page speed but I want to nail this on the head. If Xara has the option to render, then surely it must have duplicate images in the file system, or is the rendering done at time of page load and if so then that must also surely slow page opening thus removing the advantage of small image file size.

When you publish the site Xara creates 4 images for each image. Example below:

The browser will down-load the most relevant one depending on visitors machine & browser.
Google will see you have maximised images and not mark you down for this.

[Acorn]

@Lynnzer, there is a difference between what is uploaded and what is rendered by a browser.

WebP/PNG or WebP/JPG pairings are the same as image/ Retina. All are uploaded but when a page is rendered, code only fetches the right things. Google will just see WebPs.

Acorn

[Lynnzer]

@Lynnzer, there is a difference between what is uploaded and what is rendered by a browser.

WebP/PNG or WebP/JPG pairings are the same as image/ Retina. All are uploaded but when a page is rendered, code only fetches the right things. Google will just see WebPs.

Acorn

Ah, I think I'm getting it at last.
HOWEVER one FINAL question - I take it that a site which is uploaded from the Xara Pro+ via ftp to my own domain address isn't affected. Or is the rendering carried out only on a Xara hosted site?
I know.... dumb as hell......

[Acorn]

Ah, I think I'm getting it at last.
HOWEVER one FINAL question - I take it that a site which is uploaded from the Xara Pro+ via ftp to my own domain address isn't affected. Or is the rendering carried out only on a Xara hosted site?
I know.... dumb as hell......

The Export and FTP is identical regardless of the end location.


i have a pages that is index.htm
If I replace that with /index_htm_files/xr_files.txt, I can see its manifest:

index_htm_files
index.htm
index_htm_files/6.png
index_htm_files/6@2x.png
index_htm_files/6.webp
index_htm_files/6@2x.webp

PNG, WebP & Retina (@2x)

Acorn

[bwood]

OK then. I paid for the Xara Pro+ today. As you say, the price isn't over the top for the things I get.
Just another webp question though. I do have some files of that nature and as expected from the explanation I can't drag and drop them onto a page.
So, the rendering is done by Xara from jpeg or png? How does that impact on a sites Google scrutiny? If anyone's browser can't handle webp the page loading will take longer when it's rich in images. It's that very thing I want to avoid. I know there are dozens of things that can impact page speed but I want to nail this on the head. If Xara has the option to render, then surely it must have duplicate images in the file system, or is the rendering done at time of page load and if so then that must also surely slow page opening thus removing the advantage of small image file size.
Finally, can you point me to a site where webp images are shown in webp for supported browsers so I can compare them to a non supported browser.

The funny thing is that even the images on Xara's own website show as png's so perhaps they are blowing a lot of smoke on website rendering. Or maybe they aren't using Xara Pro+ themselves????

Glad you made that update. Really is the way to go. Multiple updates regularly.
-W

[behzad]

I rather have solid updates rather than multiple regular updates to getting things corrected. Is that not the case (people who are on the plus?)