Something is off in this calculation, how did they get to such a high cost for such a simple thing as an alternative image format when the web supports multiple???
My guess would be that the users hitting different types of issues are mostly the same; someone who can't view an alternative image format is using an obscure old browser or obscure OS that will inevitably have a ton of other issues too, and fixing only a subset of the issues would not make much difference.
No, this was not about the alternative image format. This was about the browsers and screen resolutions that we choose to fully support.
We took the data directly from the website visitors analytics.
Basically .. resolutions under 1024px and anything older than edge 11 was left out of the scope.
