So Safari will support jxl 
.
When Chrome announce AVIF support the internets had high expectations! Reality showed that AVIF was not as good as the hype.
Will this also be the case with #jxl ?
I've done some quick initial tests with ImageEngine to see what to expect when using large scale services (not handcrafting every single image).
Comparing avif to jxl, jxl reduces file size by an additional 11%.
Still, visual quality (dssim) is 13% better with jxl.
For those who want to play around with #jpegxl on ImageEngine: https://support.imageengine.io/hc/en-us/articles/16739209580301
@jonarnes Next will be getting more developers to learn about and test to see if it fits their own needs. However, it has the best chance of replacing all the existing JPEGs, still GIFs (mostly memes), PNGs, and WebPs (both lossy and lossless) with smaller files at the same or better quality. It has huge potential.
@jimbo2150 @jonarnes I have found a lot of resistance to webp among communities I frequent. To be fair I often go to a share an image somewhere and it's unsupported, which is annoying, but otherwise seems a serviceable file type for my own uses. I wonder if we will see similair resistance going forward.
@idahoBLM @jimbo2150 webp support is far beyond "critical mass" when it comes to browser support. But for image editing etc. I can relate to the resistance. Depends on what communities we're talking about I guess. For photographers and artists, webp is hardly any favourite simply because it's based on a video codec. Same with avif.
@jonarnes What do these diagrams show?
@txt_file They show the file size (bytes) on different file formats and the "visual similarity" between the original image and the optimized in different formats..