If you really use images of this size on your website, then you are doing something fundamentally wrong. ;)
Hi Jens. I did not say that I use it on the site. It was just a pure experiment.
But... there is nothing wrong to use such images. It all depends on the design.
Would you possibly provide the page where you found the problem and how much slower it became due to the extension?
I have long been tested and did not save the results.
But if we think logically:
By default, there is an <img>
containing a static link to the image.
When we turn on the plugin as a DJ-Webp, on first start, it collects all images from the site, converts them, with each reboot of page, it adds at least srcset
in <img>
. By the correct, it must delete all <img>
s and replace them on <picture>
with <source>
and <img>
inside.
I do not think that the execution of the script will win at the static link. And I was convinced of this when testing. If I knew that the result would be required as an argument, I would save it :)
And an important point. I did not test the speed of the full page, only the speed of the first render for user interaction. And this indicator was worse with DJ-Webp.
Perhaps the speed of the entire page is faster by reducing image sizes. But not the first render. I consider this indicator most important. This was especially manifested in interactive components, such as carousels, galleries and similar.