[jmull]

> Very disingenuous take...instead uses a random web tool

You missed that this is a rebuttal to an article that suggests using dithering and to use that specific tool. Hardly "random".

> anyone still supports IE 11?

Fair enough for now, but MS itself is in the process of dropping support for IE 11, so I don't expect others to carry on without them very widely. It will be all retro sites and corporate sites soon (LOL, for completely different reasons -- one wants to visit the past from time-to-time, and the other doesn't know how to escape it)

[Hitton]

Ok, not quite random, but still hardly fair. If that's the take, it should be called "Websites should not use images created by this dithering tool" instead.

Usage of IE 11 and other browsers which do not support even webp (old safaris) is higher than usage of screen readers.

Personally I doubt we'll ever experience widespread usage of avif, considering how long it took Apple with webp, we'll probably sooner have jpeg xl.

[xtracto]

I think the main premise of the article "Dithering is not Compression". People should use compression algorithms to compress their images. They shouldn't be using "color depth decrease" algorithms to compress their images.