TinyPNG vs QuickShrink: Why I Switched to Client-Side Image Compression
The article discusses the author's switch from TinyPNG to QuickShrink for image compression. It highlights the privacy concerns associated with server-side compression tools and introduces client-side compression as a solution. QuickShrink offers advantages such as offline capability and better handling of sensitive content.
- ▪TinyPNG requires uploading images to a server, raising privacy concerns for sensitive projects.
- ▪QuickShrink uses client-side compression, meaning images are processed locally without leaving the user's device.
- ▪QuickShrink supports WebP output and offers features like resizing and offline capability.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
try { if(localStorage) { let currentUser = localStorage.getItem('current_user'); if (currentUser) { currentUser = JSON.parse(currentUser); if (currentUser.id === 3847175) { document.getElementById('article-show-container').classList.add('current-user-is-article-author'); } } } } catch (e) { console.error(e); } Max Posted on May 27 • Originally published at orthogonal.info TinyPNG vs QuickShrink: Why I Switched to Client-Side Image Compression #webdev #performance #privacy #tools Every web developer knows TinyPNG. It's been the go-to image compressor for years.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at DEV.to (Top).
Discussion
0 commentsMore from DEV.to (Top)
