New Image Compression 
Auteur : John W.In what's new for version 2019.3, there is this paragraph:
New image compression engine for Pro : All images added into a project can be optimized later using the newly integrated image compression engine. By optimizing images, their overall dimensions can be reduced up to 60%.
Does this mean all objects ALREADY in the file have been optimized? Or that they can be optimized later?
And if later, is there something I have to do to trigger it?
Or does it mean that objects added from here forward will be optimized and those already in the project are
just as they were without optimization?
I am asking because I am farting around in Developer Tools in Chrome and analyzing various site pages on
my site. The Performance score for my home page is quite crappy. And the two biggest issues seem to be:
a) Defer offscreen images (lazy load images), and b) Image formats are old as in JPG and PNG. Says to
use JPEG 2000, JPEG XR, or WebP formats for the images. Most seem to be PNG.
How much should I trust this Google tool for analyzing a site? And I notice when I try a few of the
suggested tweaks that are within my knowledge or control to find, the score keeps getting worse. Ugh.
Any thoughts on getting those images perfected?
Auteur
Here's something more to add to the mix. In Adobe Photoshop, I can save a file as JPEG 2000.
It creates a file extension of .jpf. When placing object in Website X5, any file with .jpf extension is unavailable.
The software does not understand or allow this file format.
Hello.
"Does this mean all objects ALREADY in the file have been optimized? Or that they can be optimized later?
And if later, is there something I have to do to trigger it?" - Images are compressed when you export a site to disk or hosting.Here is a short review.
When you add new images they will also be optimized.
"a) Defer offscreen images (lazy load images)" - If you have Google PageSpeed Module one on the server, then you can solve this problem. Here is a little test https://magazin.aleksius.com/en/blog/31-website-x5-speed-optimization
"How much should I trust this Google tool for analyzing a site?" - I always trust these recommendations.But I do not always follow them.
"Any thoughts on getting those images perfected?" - I tried to do this. I compressed the files of an already exported site. But it is not convenient. As soon as you update something on the site and re-upload it to the hosting, part or all of the images will be replaced.
Auteur
Thanks, Aleksej. When time permits this week, I may check out MOZ and how their tools may help. I have not
been doing much of this over the last few years and I am a bit rusty, and I have seen that the world of SEO has
changed dramatically over the last year or two.
And that Google Developers Tool gave my site a performace score of 75 last night, but when checked just now
without altering anything since then, says score is 61. So my trust of that particular scoring is not so strong.
Must have a lot to do with the connection speed at the moment of the test.
And I am not going to get crazy and start altering all my graphics. I was just glad to discover the PNG vs JPG
thing on my home page and I estimate the called upon assest dropped about 1.4MB. So that should be a big
speed help. Will see over the next week or so.
"Must have a lot to do with the connection speed at the moment of the test." - Yes you are right. Performace score may depend on the time of checke.At the time of checke, the server can be heavily loaded and render pages more slowly.
Auteur
Yes, I checked this morning and it said 83. Wish it said that or higher each time....
But still better than coming in at the 30's to 40's.
... ... ... ... The software does not understand or allow this file format.
... what they tell us about the new formats is not always true ...
... for example they are not widespread and not used at all in important sites, and it is not true that they have better characteristics as they tell us; ... here is a comparison made by me ...
... see > WEBP Wikipedia >> 870 KB ... !!! ...
... see > JPEG (Wikipedia) >> 446 KB ...! ...
... the same JPG image weighs almost half of the WEBP, without loss of definition and faster loading ...
...
... however, for those who still don't know! ... in the program they can always be! use all additional formats, such as SVG, WEBP, JPEG2000, ... just select the images in your own folder like this:
*.svg
*.webp
*.jp2
*.j2f
*.* ... ... (x all) ...
...
.
As KolAsim writes, sometimes the size of webP is several times heavier than JPG. I don't understand this "boom" at all. Maybe GooglePageSpeed reads it better, hard to say. The problem with this format is also compatibility with Apple "Safari is experimenting with supporting WebP images". So if someone wants to follow the advice of Google must make two copies of the same photo in WebP and J2000, then files will be heavy, and I do not know how it would have a positive effect on faster site loading.
"sometimes the size of webP is several times heavier than JPG. I don't understand this "boom" at all" - there is no perfect file format.I recommend choosing a file format depending on the image.The smaller the file size in KB and the better the picture quality at the same time, the better.No matter what format.
If you sufficiently reduce the image size (in Kb), then Google will stop writing to you about the need to use a modern format.And it doesn’t matter which format it is. On my site, I mainly use PNG. Files are optimized and Google does not recommend me to use webP.
At least I tested this approach on 10-20 sites and it works.
Auteur
Thank you, everyone. I will stick with JPEG's and let Photoshop optimize them first, and then Website X5 can do
it's thing with them within the program. Sometimes more productive to just keep it simple.