Post

Great article. And it’s amazing how much both formats get out of a few kb. Honestly unless I zoomed in really, really close, and flicked back and forth I couldn’t really tell difference between low quality and the top one! 100kb is more than enough for most web images IMHO. And maybe even 30-50kb?

Jake Archibald@jakearchibald.com

JPEG XL has arrived on the web, but how does it stack up against AVIF? jakearchibald.com/2026/jpeg-xl...

2 reposts16 likes

Interesting to see a number of .jxl files indexed in Google Images. Running a filetype query for jxl yields those images, but also mixes in other formats. But you can see .jxl files indexed there. So works sometimes, but just not officially supported?

Image CDNs often auto convert to a supported format without changing the file extension. It’s confusing, which presumably is why Search docs advise to give the correct file extension where possible.

Good to know! But people should provide fallbacks anyway since it’s newly supported in Chrome and Firefox. I presume Search would similarly handle that in <picture> and via Accept-Encoding? Also presume Search will consider this now it’s become Baseline newly available!

The picture element includes an img element, so that would work for any search engine (or other page parsing setup). I have not heard of any problems with people doing this kind of progressive enhancement (I think it's "progressive enhancement" here too, right?).

Yup <picture> has progressive enhancement build in! Providing you use it right of course. You could just have the <img> being a JPEG-XL format, but that would be kinda silly IMHO.