Thursday, April 26, 2007

Wallpapers
There are a lot of differences now compared to when we launched the wallpapers site.

When we launched, a lot of people used 640 by 480 as a browser resolution. Now, absolutely no one does. Literally, the percentage is 0.15%(!).

Given this, I see absolutely no need to store 15 GB of 640 by 480 wallpapers, it's a waste of space. Thankfully 68% of people browse with 800x600 or 1024x768. However, that still leaves 1/3rd of our audience without properly sized wallpapers.

If we include 1280x1024 as a wallpaper size, we can increase compatibility from 68% to 80%. If we include 1280x800 we can get it to 90%.

One problem is that there are so many resolutions. There's 118 different screen resolutions that account for about 10% of our visitors. Should we accommodate a size that only 3% of people use?

Another problem with higher resolution wallpapers is that the sizes aren't proportional. I loved the 1024->800->640 combo because the artist could just upload one wallpaper and our system would resize it without distortion. We can't do this with the higher resolution sizes so the artist would have to upload multiple files. You have to draw a line though at the number of files you ask an artist to upload at once...

There's also a question on user experience. Let's say we offered 1280x800 wallpapers. We have 100,000 wallpapers now without that resolution, so if you're browsing, looking for 1280x800 wallpapers, how do we help you sort through it.

One question: How does Microsoft Vista handle wallpapers? Is it the same as XP - anything I should know?

On another note, James' design concept for a new version of theOtaku is complete. I'm excited about it, though implementation will certainly be a long-term challenge.
Comments (11)