A vital element of any new product cycle is user research. Miss it out at your peril or even worse; do it but do it badly.

It sounds easy enough, ask a few questions, get a few surveys filled in and you can say you’ve done user research.

However, it is precisely because organisations falsely believe this stage of the process is simple enough and don’t allocate sufficient time or resources that they risk achieving the opposite – a costly mistake.

The first thing you should do, before anything else, is conduct a UX audit of your products and platforms in order to achieve a proper understanding of how things stand for you right now.

If you’re passionate about quality user research that adds value, we’ve identified 5 common user research mistakes that your organisation should avoid:

1. Research that is all over the place

If you are looking to gather meaningful data that will inspire your project team and enhance product design, user research cannot just be embarked on. It requires careful planning, with clear, defined goals.

The temptation is to throw some money and a few members of the team into the mix and expect to get something vaguely useful out of it. By all means, if vague works for you and you have a limitless budget at your disposal then jump straight in. The risk with this approach is that it rarely yields enough information that can be used successfully. 

To avoid wasting valuable resource on unhelpful user research, be clear on what you want out of the event. Discuss requirements with the project team, the client and any other stakeholders. 

Evaluate data that is already available and drill down to what exactly you need to know that will inform the next stage of the product’s process. What do people want the research to inform them of? Dealing with these elements will ensure that the user research phase has purpose and adds value. 

A clear user research plan is vital to get buy-in from stakeholders for both the research and results. Smashing Magazine describes a 1-page research plan that will help to focus and describe what will happen, why and how.  

2. Asking people what they want

User research is all about understanding people and their experiences with specific tasks, environment and products. Therefore it would seem the best course of action is to ask people what they want.

Unfortunately, human beings, when confronted with such a general question, will falter and not be able to offer any coherent response. The majority of the time, people do not know exactly what they want.

It is a misguided belief that we understand how our brains works and the impact of this on our behaviour.

Nisbet and Wilson in their 1977 paper Telling more than we can know explain:

“when people attempt to report on their cognitive processes…, they do not do so based on any true introspection. Instead, their reports are based on a priori, implicit casual theories or judgments about the extent to which a particular stimulus is a plausible cause for a given response.”

In addition, taken out of their natural environment, people find it challenging to illustrate their activity and any problems they face. To maximum opportunity for learning, user researchers will find observation to be the ideal approach.

Observation should take place in the locations where people are naturally engaged in tasks using tools that will give you and how your product may be impacted. If unable to go to people’s workplace or home environment, it is helpful to try and replicate surroundings that will allow them to demonstrate how they operate. People find it easier to discuss and describe their goals and challenges when they have something to react to. 

User researches should not assume that because people are unable to articulate what they want, that their input is not required, or that user research is not helpful.  Rather they should reflect on their methods and plan to optimise data gathered during the phase, i.e. a combination of observation and interviewing. 

3. Research formats

We’ve touched on the possible forms that user research may take, concluding that a combination of focus group style and observation is the preferred approach. 

Nielsen Norman Group explains that the critical question is which format to use and when and agree that most projects will benefit from multiple methods. Despite this, a common mistake made by researchers is selecting the wrong type of research method.

For example, you decide to progress with a survey that is several pages long. How confident can you be that it has been completed honestly and mindfully, i.e. not just selecting random answers just to get to the end? Furthermore, a survey doesn’t always allow the participant to provide much context.  

The user research method must be proportionate to the project. If you’re unsure how the approach will work in practice, don’t be afraid to test it out — not testing user research methods before full roll-out is another popular misjudgement.

Asking even one user to go through the process can provide valuable information to perfect the style and format of your chosen method, as well as helping to fix any technical issues that may be lurking – if technology is involved.

If it all feels too much like hard work, don’t be tempted to re-use old user research studies!  

4. Doing it together

User research doesn’t have to be lonely work. In fact, involving others can enhance the quality of the project. It is a mistake to leave the project or client team out of the process.

Not including them can overall be a hindrance to the outcome you want to achieve – if you think moving without taking account of their feedback will get the job done quicker, you run the risk of them moving on with the design phase and dismissing your work.

People should feel invested in the results, as such, they should be included in all stages of the user research phase – from providing input to the research plan, to recruiting participants and being given the opportunity to review the findings. 

The UX collective helpful lists ways in which to make user experience a team sport.

In contrast, it is also a mistake to have too many team members on field visits. As such, participants can be left feeling intimidated and awkward, which may have an adverse impact on their usual performance. Have a rota in place that gives those that want to be a part of the process a chance to be involved. 

5. Objectivity

Objectivity is a challenge but essential in user research. Allowing your own prejudices or perceptions sneak into research questions or interviews is all too easily done. Bias can find its way into how questions are asked, how the findings are presented and worse; in deciding whether to present the findings at all.

Questions should be open-ended and constructed so they don’t lead participants towards a particular response. They should also not be laid out, so there is a default option because it is less hassle to just go with the pre-selected answer. For more about smart survey writing find out more at UX Booth

The findings of conducting research in this manner may not be popular, but it is not the user researcher’s decision to discredit without sharing and inviting a discussion.

If you’d like to discuss any aspect of your marketing or digital presence, why not contact us for an informal chat.



Product designers are some great people. Out of nothing, they create a masterpiece that does not only looks functional but are visually appealing and send the right message. No doubt, product designers are critical thinkers and design great products based on specifications. However, just like any other professionals, they make mistakes. In this article, Plant discusses the common mistakes designers make.

As a designer, knowing about these mistakes would help you avoid making them. One thing I have come to realize as a designer myself is that these mistakes are more common than I thought. I have done my research, I have asked and looked at work done by my team and other teams as well, and my findings are discussed below.

One of the greatest and the most common mistakes designers make is thinking everything is about appearance. Yes, a product has to be visually appealing to its customers else, no-sells would be made, and you will run out of business. However, there is more to having a topnotch product than just having an aesthetically beautiful product. You need to think about two more things — performance and cost.

I do not need to tell you that products are designed in order to perform a specific function. If they fail to perform that function, they will be visually appealing for nothing — and people are after performant products with aesthetic appeal. The cost of the product should also be considered and you do not want to end up with a product that’s priced too high that intending customers cannot buy.

More than often, some product designers trust their instincts so much that they produce the wrong product. This is because they did not work according to specification. It is even a good practice not to start work until you get a full description of the product requirements. This is because regardless of how beautiful a product design is, if it is not done according to specification, they would never be appreciated.

We have once done a design for someone with a vague requirement. They kept requesting for changes to be made along as we progressed until we lost our nerves. At last, the design had to be discontinued — it was a mess, and the client felt it was our fault. If we had insisted on getting a good requirement and specification, before starting, this wouldn’t have happened.

Copyright infringement is a big offense and might get you to lose money even if the owner of the copyright opted for out of the court settlement. However, it is common practice for product designers to forget about intellectual properties of those when they are designing any peace. Since it is a gross mistake that would potentially make you lose money and reputation, it becomes very important always to consider intellectual properties of others in order to avoid been dragged into the mud for copyright infringement.

Before making any work a part of your work, make sure you have done research and ascertained that the work is not covered by any copyright. In the case where it is copyrighted, seek the permission of the owner and let them give you permission in writing. This is to avoid being labeled an intellectual thief in the future.

I can do all kind of design with just my Sketch — does this sound familiar? Some designers have been so fond of one tool that it becomes their all in all. They will even prefer to use it for a work that the tool is inefficient. This is a mistake that needs to be stopped. It leads to wasting of time and decreases work quality.

The best product designs are the ones done with the best and most efficient tool. It is important to state that I am not saying Sketch is not an efficient design tool. In fact, Sketch, when used together with Plant, is one of the best design software in the market. However, there are some design works that you would rather not use them.

Most projects come with deadlines and as such designers work tirelessly to meet those deadlines. However, working to meet deadlines is one of the causes of doing a poor job. When you work under pressure, you won’t be at your best and might end up messing the design up. Sadly, this is one practice product designers go through every single day.

To avoid working under pressure, always add a buffer to the time you feel you will get the job done. By doing so, you are sure you’ll get the job done without working under pressure. It is better you finish the work before the time than rush the work to meet the deadline. If you do not work under pressure, your mind will be at a state of harmony and will help more in producing a good masterpiece.

Most product designers are perfectionists. They work themselves up in other to design a product that their faults cannot be pinpointed. However, it is a common practice that nothing is perfect. No matter how hard you try to make a perfect masterpiece, it will still have some faults unnoticed by you. You doubt me? Go to Amazon or any other website with product reviews, and you’ll discover even products with world-class product designers are fault-laden. In fact, they are aware of some of these faults but ship them like that — so they can correct them in later versions when the conditions are right.

You need to forget about perfection and start sticking to specifications. When you meet the specifications described in the product requirements, you can touch them a lot and leave them like that. You do not have to keep wasting time.

From the above, you can tell that a lot of mistakes are being made by designers. The above are just a few. At Plant, we are always at a lookout for those mistakes and help our product designers correct them. You can do that too in your team.


“Elegance is achieved when all that is superfluous has been discarded and the human being discovers simplicity and concentration: the simpler and more sober the posture, the more beautiful it will be.” –Paulo Coelho

A web designer’s mission is to create engaging user experiences, help site visitors accomplish tasks, and increase conversions. In the process, they often only focus on aesthetics, take shortcuts, and end up relying on various common design patterns and trends. The danger in this is that they can get sidetracked by popular trends, and consequently, common UX mistakes are made because the trends are inappropriately deployed.

When it comes to the web, people don’t want to learn things, they want to do things. There are plenty of examples on the web where designers opted to focus only on visual appeal and in so doing, sacrificed usability. They presumed a “wow moment” which drove the design would be powerful enough in itself to engage the user. But sadly, the users are having a hard time understanding the UI, have genuine difficulty using the site, and the site’s bounce rates have skyrocketed.

As Kate Rutter stated, “Ugly but useful trumps pretty but pointless.” The key to using web design patterns and trends effectively is to find a balance between what looks aesthetically pleasing and where they add value.

Common UX mistakes drive people away.
Designers should do everything they can to avoid common UX mistakes and putting roadblocks into the user’s paths.

Let’s look at some common UX mistakes.

More and more tall sticky headers can be seen on websites. “Branding blocks” and navigation menus that have a fixed position and take up a significant amount of space. They stay glued to the top of the browser window (the “sticky header”) and often block the content as it scrolls underneath them.

Some headers on big-brand websites are over 150 pixels in height. Where is their value? Fixed elements, such as sticky headers can have real benefits, but web designers should be careful using them—there are several important UX issues to consider.

Big fat sticky headers are a major UX mistake.
The sticky header on this site is over 160 pixels tall taking up a lot of the viewable area.

If the decision to go with a sticky nav header has already been made, it’s best to test it with users. It’s a common UX mistake to go overboard and stuff the sticky nav header with content. With a fixed header, browsing should still be comfortable for visitors. Failing to find the right balance may result in leaving a small amount of room for the main content and a stifling, claustrophobic site experience for visitors.

Sometimes there is a simple workaround with CSS: by making the sticky header slightly transparent, people are still able to see content through it as they scroll, which makes the content area feel more substantial.

Here is an example of a tall sticky header: ATP’s player profile page on Roger Federer.

Large sticky navigation on websites is one of the most common UX mistakes.

This site’s sticky header has a height of over 180px! That’s over 30% of the entire page height on some laptops: a poor user experience that’s avoidable.

Some people may be using large, high-resolution computer displays where a sticky nav header could speed up interactions, but what about mobile? Without a doubt a significant number of site visitors would be accessing the site from a mobile device, so a fixed header may not be the best idea. Luckily, responsive design techniques make it possible to design different solutions for different platforms, and stick with the sticky nav header—pun intended—for desktop browsers.

The Coffee with a Cop site also has a fixed header, but much smaller—less than 80 pixels tall.

Common UX mistakes that web designers make.

The header navigation, in this case, is arguably the right solution for high-resolution screens, as it enables more efficient navigation. On smaller resolution screens, the header is also fixed but takes up a considerable amount of space. An excellent alternative to a sticky nav header on mobile is the ever-present hamburger menu. Although this pattern is not a universal problem-solver, it does free up a significant amount of space.

Web Design Common UX Mistake No. 2: Thin, Light Fonts

These days thin, light fonts are pervasive on numerous mobile apps and websites. With the advance of screen technology and improved rendering, a lot of designers are using them because they are elegant, clean, and trendy. However, thin typefaces can cause usability problems and therefore hamper the UX.

The goal of all text on a website is to be legible, and thin type can seriously affect readability. Not all visitors will be viewing a site on a display that renders thin type well. Some light type is challenging to read on an iPhone or an iPad with a Retina display.

Above all, text must be legible. If users can’t read the words in your app, it doesn’t matter how beautiful the typography is.

Apple Human Interface Guidelines

Apple is referring to mobile apps, but the same principle applies to websites. Legibility is mandatory, not optional for good usability. There is no point putting content on a website if it is unreadable.

Thin fonts are also a common UX mistake on mobile design.
Examples of thin, light fonts on mobile sites which negatively affect readability.

Here are some common UX mistakes to consider before using thin type:

Using Thin and Light Fonts Because It’s Trendy

Fonts should not only look good, but they should also be legible. To achieve proper contrast and legibility, designers should strive for the optimum combination in their designs: size, weight, and color.

It’s best to test the site on various devices and screen sizes to ensure all site text is legible.

Which leads us to the next common UX mistake:

Not Testing the Text Legibility on All Major Devices

Thin, light type may look good on many designers’ expensive, finely-tuned monitors, but the average user who often see our designs on cheaper, substandard displays must also be considered. The best practice is to check how fonts look on all major devices: desktop computers, laptops, tablets, and smartphones.

For example, while testing a mobile design, have participants use the site on mobile devices in daylight—real-world users will not always have perfect browsing and lighting conditions. If using a thin font on a website, there’s a simple way to adapt to mobile users: specify a thicker font on mobile for better readability.

User experience issues with websites.
Low-contrast text on an older version of the Apple Music website.

Web Design Common UX Mistake No. 3: Low-Contrast Text

Using low color contrast elements have also become trendy in modern user interface design. It grew out of a minimalist design trend because by reducing contrast in some areas, the design would appear “minimalist.” Designers couldn’t cut the complexity of information that needed to be presented, so they played with low contrast in the design.

We have already covered thin fonts, but there is an even bigger pitfall: a combination of a light typeface with low contrast that seriously impedes UX due to lousy readability. Designers should do anything they can to avoid this usability trap.

Low Text Contrast in Body Copy

Cool Springs Financial uses a thin variant of Helvetica for body text on its website. While it looks elegant and contributes to an aesthetically pleasing UI, it’s difficult to read on several platforms. While low contrast is not necessarily bad, it can have a negative impact on the usability of a website by making text hard to read.

UX trends example of low contrast text.
Small, thin, low-contrast body text on a website makes it difficult to read.

Not Testing Text Contrast

There is a nifty tool for contrast checking on the web called Colorable that will help designers set correct text contrast according to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Once designers know they are using the right text contrast, they can adjust other colors on their website and do a quick multiple device/user tests to make sure the text is readable.

Another high-risk trend gaining ground on the web is the “scroll hijack.” Websites that implement this trend take control of page scrolling (usually with JavaScript). When people encounter it, they no longer have control of the page scroll and are unable to predict its behavior, which can easily lead to confusion and frustration. It’s a risky experiment that could hurt website usability and at worst, induce “computer rage.”

Some websites can get away with scroll hijacking, but that doesn’t mean everybody can. For example, many web designers follow Apple’s sites with scroll hijacking, parallax effects, and high-resolution images of various products. Apple has its target market, a unique concept, and exclusive content for their website. Since every site has unique problems, it also must have unique solutions tailored to those problems.

Not Testing with Real-World Users

When borrowing trendy ideas or UI patterns, it’s best to test the prototype of a website on real-world users to avoid UX issues. Simple usability testing will reveal whether the implementation of a scroll hijack, for example, is feasible or not. Without testing, designers have no way of knowing if scroll hijacking will work, and making assumptions is often costly.

Common UX problems.
Tumblr scroll hijacks its website and that could prove to be a common UX mistake.

Tumblr, a popular personal blogging site, uses scroll hijacking on their homepage. While doing so could be risky, it’s safe to assume they know their target audience well and the cool, hip user experience they want to present. When site visitors start to scroll, the scroll is hijacked, and people are taken to the next section.

The long scroll page is broken into several sections which are distinguishable by a heavy dose of saturated colors and prominent indicator dots on the left side of the window. As a result, Tumblr’s homepage feels like a big vertical carousel visitors have control over, rather than an unpleasant, experimental website with a mind of its own.

Another common UX mistake in web design scroll hijacking that doesn't work.
Some websites can frustrate visitors with scroll hijacking that seems to be stuck and people can’t scroll pages, as on Bryter.

Web Design Common UX Mistake No. 5: Carousels

Carousels—a slideshow for rotating through a variety of content—are very common on the web, especially on landing pages and homepages. While they can be useful, they have numerous usability issues and therefore qualify as another common UX mistake. According to the Nielsen Norman Group: “people often immediately scroll past these large images and miss all of the content within them.” It could negatively impact UX as visitors may not see valuable content in some of the rotating slides.

Bad UX examples for image carousels on websites.
Auto-forwarding carousels are a bad idea—especially if they contain text for people to read—because site visitors often have no control over the timing.

Website Carousels May Not Provide Value for Users

If done right, a carousel can engage users with large striking images. The trouble is, carousels often don’t add any additional value but are simply there for decoration and only included because everybody else is using them. A way to test if a site carousel makes sense: write down three benefits a carousel provides for the visitor. If three meaningful benefits can’t be found, it doesn’t add any value.

The previous and next Arrows Have Low Discoverability

Important information in a website carousel could remain hidden if the next and previous arrows are not discoverable. The controls should also be tap-compatible for mobile.

Often there are no arrows to control the carousel; only the slide indicator dots are included to advance the slides. However, they are often low contrast, have low discoverability, and lack a large enough clickable or tappable area. The small clickable targets may lead to poor UX, a frustrated website visitor, and a quick exit from the website.

For example, the Floresta Longo Foundation website has a rotating carousel of images on its homepage. It’s set to autoplay and rotates through five photographs. The previous and next arrows, however, are small and transparent, which makes them hard to spot and challenging to click. There are no indicators for the slide visitors are on, and no labels to signify what the images represent. The images are not links and act as pure decoration. While this type of carousel may hold some value for engaging the visitor, overall it leaves a lot to be desired.

Websites with bad UX and sticky navigation UX.
No slide indicator dots and barely visible next/prev arrows are another common UX mistake with website carousels.


Web design trends, if not considered carefully and implemented with caution, could lead to several common UX mistakes. UX designers should use their best judgment and not be afraid to innovate, but to ensure great website usability it would serve them well to test their design thoroughly with real-world users.

In the crazy profusion of web design trends, things in vogue come and go. Amid this chaos, the balanced use of aesthetics, efficiency, and usability plays a significant role in distinguishing the UX trends that have proved to be the strongest and garnered the most user acceptance.

Web designers can come up with the coolest color scheme, the fanciest scrolling animation, or the most fantastic parallax effects, but if the human interaction suffers as a result, the UX will be poor, and people will quickly move on. Another site is just a click away.

• • •

Further reading on the Toptal Design Blog:


Website owners encounter image files all the time. While you don’t have to be an image expert to edit and upload images to a website, you should familiarize yourself with common file formats such as JPEG. Or is it JPG?

In this article, I’ll present a JPG vs JPEG showdown so you understand the differences, as well as other details that will help you upload the best images possible to your website for the ultimate user experience.

Ready? Let’s get started!

What is JPEG?

As a website owner working with images, you have most likely seen the file format JPEG at some point during your editing and uploading adventures.

But did you know that the term JPEG is actually a reference for three different things?

Well, it is and we’re here to explain all of them:

1. JPEG Lossy Compression

When you upload images to your website, it’s important you take care not to negatively affect your site’s speed and performance by using large images that waste resources and take forever to load on the frontend of your site. In fact, all website owners should optimize their images in some way to reduce the file sizes of their images and preserve loading times and the user experience.

That’s where JPEG comes in handy. JPEG is a lossy compression method used to ensure the digital images being used are as small as possible and load quickly when someone wants to view them.

Here are some things to remember about lossy compression:

  • The file size of the image being compressed is permanently reduced by eliminating unnecessary (redundant) information from the image.
  • Image quality does suffer, though it’s often so slight the average site visitor can’t tell.
  • During the compression process, each pixel is compared to pixels surrounding it in a ratio ranging from 2:1 all the way to 100:1 (any pixels that are the same as the original are then deleted as they are deemed redundant).
  • JPEG lossy compression is usually used for photographs and complex still images.
  • When you compress an image using lossy compression, you determine the file size and image quality trade-off (e.g., smaller files = worse image quality).
  • The more editing and saving of a single image you do, the worse the quality of the image will be.

If you’re more experienced in editing images using lossy compression, there is a chance you can save the image quality while reducing its file size by working with RAW JPEG images, making edits, and saving the image one time.

If you don’t want to perform JPEG lossy compression on your site’s images, there’s always the alternative: lossless compression.

Lossless compression saves your images in an entirely different format (usually PNG). While the image quality is never sacrificed because no information is eliminated, know that with lossless compression the final file size of your image will always be bigger than with lossy compression. This may result in slower page loading times.

2. Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG)

JPEG stands for the Joint Photographic Experts Group, which is the name of the sub-committee that helped create the JPEG standard, as well as other still picture coding standards under the broader group called ISO.

The first JPEG standard was issued in 1992 by ISO (International Organization for Standardization). ISO is responsible for creating documents that “…provide requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes, and services are fit for their purpose.”

ISO sets the standards for many things, including digital images, in an effort to provide users and consumers with the highest quality products and services.

This international organization is a voluntary group of people with members from over 164 countries, making it the world’s largest developer of standards.

3. JPEG as a File Format

The last way the term JPEG is used is when referencing a file format name or a way to store and save digital images. This is probably the way you’re most used to seeing JPEG because this is one of the file format choices you have when you save an image after editing it.

jpg vs jpeg: jpeg file formatWhat is JPG?

What in the world is JPG in comparison to JPEG?

jpg vs jpeg: windows file extensionsJPG vs JPEG: Similarities Between the Two

Okay, so you know that .jpeg and .jpg files are the same exact thing. But just to drive that point home, and help you remember it long into the future, we’re going to look at the similarities of JPEG and JPG images.

1. Both Are Raster Images (Not Vector Images)

Computer images can be created as raster or vector images. And since JPEGs are raster images, so are JPGs.

Raster graphics are bitmaps of images. A bitmap is a grid of individual pixels that when combined create an entire image. In other words, raster images are a collection of countless tiny squares (or pixels) of color that are each coded in a specific hue or shade that when put together create a whole image that makes sense to look at.

Here’s more information about raster images to help you better understand:

  • Best used for non-lined images such as photographs, scanned artwork, or detailed graphics.
  • They have subtle hue or shade gradations and very undefined lines and shapes.
  • Due to their pixel-based nature, they suffer quality issues when blown up in size (they become jagged and expose individual pixels).
  • They are defined and displayed at one specific resolution, which is measured in dots per inch (dpi).
  • The higher the dpi, the better the resolution and visual appeal of the image.
  • Common raster file formats include: TIFF, JPEG, GIF, PCX and BMP files.
  • Raster images are the Web standard, meaning they are preferred for all images found on the internet.

Again, JPEGs and JPGs are not vector images.

Here’s some information about vector images so you can understand the difference:

  • Images are based on mathematical formulas that define geometric shapes like polygons, lines, curves, circles, and rectangles.
  • Perfect for straight-edged images like line art.
  • Because there are no color gradations, they work well for flat, uniformly colored images.
  • Include popular graphics such as logos, letterhead, and fonts.
  • Scale up or down without any quality degradation because they don’t rely on pixels to make the image whole.

2. Both Terms Mean the Same Thing

Remember when we discussed the term JPEG and how it stood for the Joint Photographic Experts Group? Well, you guessed it; both JPEG and JPG are abbreviations for that same ISO sub-committee.

3. Both Are Used for the Same Image Types

Because they are raster images, and not vectors, both .jpeg and .jpg file formats are best used for digital photography. Digital photographs have extensive color gradations that appear seamless when saved as raster JPEG/JPG images. This means your site visitors will always see a beautiful photograph if it’s saved as a .jpeg/.jpg and uploaded to your website.

4. Both Lose Some Quality When Saved

Since the .jpeg vs .jpg comparison is null (because they are the same exact thing), it makes sense that the compression method used on each file format — lossy compression— results in some loss of image quality as the file size of the image decreases.

In addition, this means that no matter what file extension you use (either .jpeg or .jpg), your image’s file size will be smaller than it was originally and result in faster loading times when uploaded onto your website and viewed by site visitors.

In the end, JPEGs and JPGs are the same thing and serve a few main purposes: to reduce the file size of images for better web viewing and give people an easy way to compress their images upon saving and name the file using a common file extension that is recognized by many.

So ask yourself: JPG vs JPEG, which is better? From there, don’t think too hard because the answer is neither. They are the same and whichever one you choose, is just a matter of preference.

JPG vs JPEG 2000

If you’ve ever found yourself searching for information about JPEGs and JPGs, you may have come across the term JPEG 2000 and wondered what in the world that was. After all, that’s not an option in most image editing software.

JPEG 2000 was an image encoding system created by the Joint Photographic Experts Group in 2000 that was designed to be better than the JPEG standard already in place. In fact, it was designed to implement lossless compression on images using advanced compression techniques on a discrete wavelength transformation.

It offered people a way to optimize their images and save them as JPEGs, without degrading the quality of the image.

Here are some of the most important features of JPEG 2000:

  • Advanced Compression Techniques: unlike traditional JPEGs, JPEG 2000 was able to perform both lossy and lossless compression (even on a single image file).
  • Progressive Decoding: enables site visitors to see a lower quality version of an image while the entire image is still downloading in the background. As more data is downloaded, the image quality improves for the viewer.
  • Higher Compression Ratios: when it comes to lossy compression, JPEG 2000 can compress an image from 20-200% more than JPEG, while maintaining the same image quality when compared to a JPEG image of the same size.

In addition, JPEG 2000:

  • Offers transparency preservation in images.
  • Can describe bi-level, grayscale, palette-color, and full-color image data.
  • Includes unlimited amounts of private or special-purpose information within metadata.
  • Can handle larger image sizes (greater than 64K x 64K pixels), with no tilting.
  • Ultra-low latency, which is especially useful for live TV content.
  • Scalability in both resolution and quality.

JPEG 2000 Limitations

Though JPEG 2000 has plenty of great features and seems to be the next best coding standard for digital images, there are reasons why it is still not a popular file format for most people:

  • No universal browser support (only supports Safari).
  • Incompatible with JPEG (must encode a new standard and support original JPEG).
  • Encoding JPEG 2000 files is CPU intensive, which can strain servers and slow things down.
  • Many websites and cameras are not ready to accept the format because it’s not universally accepted.

Because of its limitations, you’ll be hard-pressed to find the JPEG 2000 file format as an option while saving your digital images. And while it is arguably better than JPEG, until it is universally accepted, you’ll likely run into a bunch of compatibility issues making your job harder as a website owner than it needs to be.

Convert Image Files to JPG: Common Methods

There are plenty of ways to save your digital images as .jpg or .jpeg files. Let’s take a look at a few.

1. Windows Paint

If you have Windows, you can easily save any image as a .jpeg or .jpg using Windows Paint. Just upload your image to Windows Paint, go to File > Save as, choose the file destination, name your image, and select JPEG (*.jpg, *.jpeg, *.jpe, *.jfif) from the dropdown menu.

Windows Paint

export affinity designer

save as affinity designerFileZigZag is a free online file converter that’s simple to use. Just drag and drop your image file or upload it, choose the file type to convert the image into, enter an email address, and click Convert.

convert png to jpeg filezigzagXnConvert: perfect for advanced image editors that need lots of image file formats, the ability to bulk convert, and use Windows, Mac, or Linux.

  • Zamzar: a free online tool for those with large images (up to 50MB) that want the option to have the end result emailed or not.
  • Adapter: a simple image converter that supports batch images and converts instantly and works on both macOS and Windows.
  • Of course, these are just some of the available options you have if you want to convert images to JPG.

    JPG vs JPEG: What’s the difference? What about JPEG 2000? ? Get the answer (and more) in our extensive guide! ?

    Click to Tweet


    JPG vs JPEG are the most common file extensions and compression methods for those wanting to store and save digital images. This is especially true for website owners that want to display visually appealing imagery and maintain an exceptional user experience.

    Luckily for you, no matter whether you prefer .jpeg or .jpg file types, you’re going to get the same outcome: beautiful images that load blazing fast for site visitors.