Hi Cecília,
What are the specific things that your colleague is having trouble with in their existing workflow? It seems like they have something that works for them, so I would be wary about shifting their workflow too much without a clear idea of what you're trying to fix. Why is he using JPEG2000?
Many "off the shelf" JPEG2000 encoders and decoders are slow. Unless you're running a IIIF server that has access to the Kakadu decoder, or the latest OpenJPEG enhancements, I'm afraid your colleague won't see many speed benefits.
It would also depend on how technically savvy your colleague is. Setting up a IIIF image service may be a distraction to their current workflow, even if it is inefficient. There are some tools out there that would make this a bit easier (e.g., a Docker container that runs a IIIF image server) but it still requires some technical know-how, and depending on how it's implemented may not be significantly faster (unless you know how to "tune" it).
Your colleague would also probably need to generate IIIF manifests if they wanted to use Mirador or Universal Viewer. This may also be a significant distraction to their workflow, particularly if they only need local, private access. 10k images is a lot, but it's not an impossible number to manage "by hand".
So before advising your colleague to go down the IIIF route, I would do a basic analysis:
- Do the technical resources they have available (self, or others) provide adequate support for this shift in their workflow
- Will the time spent implementing a IIIF workflow save time in the long run, or will it add delay to their project (even if the existing workflow is "inefficient")
- Do the benefits of IIIF (linkable, sharable images; existing viewers; web-native image delivery) align well with the requirements of the colleague?
- Do the requirements of IIIF delivery align with existing goals of your colleague's project? (as in, is implementing IIIF just a technical distraction, or will it need to be done anyway? If it needs to be done anyway, also check that it's OK to do it NOW, since taking a different technical route can also be a distraction to the main goal of this phase of their research.)