| You're missing a step - This new format produces smaller files, and is therefore faster on the internet. You can choose a benefit that you derive from that - less bandwidth cost per user, more users per bandwidth cost, faster page load times for users. Faster page load times for users has measurable impact on user behavior - people like faster pages better. If you don't speed your page up, and your competitor does, all else being equal, customers will prefer your competitor. There are costs of supporting multiple formats, but if the benefits outweigh the costs, people will put in the effort. It's not a chicken and egg problem at all. > Very few designers will be willing to maintain two versions of all their images just because one of the formats is a bit smaller. I disagree. I think you're seeing Mobile versions of sites, already. Also, in stating that PNG was the last successful new format, I think you're forgetting SVG, CSS, and HTML5 Canvas, all of which can be used to produce images on browsers. > No web designer I know of is going to muck about in the commandline with imagemagick. Not even if there's a measurable financial impact? I think you're overstating their future unwillingness. The burden, of course, is evidence. |