hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greed Premium Member join:2003-04-03 Long Beach, CA |
Re: Allow for a bit larger AvatarsOBJECT |
|
fatnesssubtle
join:2000-11-17 fishing
1 recommendation |
said by hopeflicker:Allow for a bit larger Avatars That's right, maybe 80x80 or 90x90. Are you voting amongst yourselves? |
|
hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greed Premium Member join:2003-04-03 Long Beach, CA |
said by fatness:said by hopeflicker:Allow for a bit larger Avatars That's right, maybe 80x80 or 90x90. Are you voting amongst yourselves? OBJECT! people need to give a reason why they object |
|
fatnesssubtle
join:2000-11-17 fishing
3 recommendations |
OK, I'll give one. I like reading what people have to say. I don't like seeing bigger and bigger pictures crowding out what they say. |
|
|
hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greed Premium Member join:2003-04-03 Long Beach, CA |
said by fatness:OK, I'll give one. I like reading what people have to say. I don't like seeing bigger and bigger pictures crowding out what they say. my justification: Some avatars are too small to even recognize what they are. Just slightly bigger wouldn't hurt. Im not asking for 300x300 |
|
vaxvmsferroequine fan Premium Member join:2005-03-01 Polar Park |
to hopeflicker
said by hopeflicker:people need to give a reason why they object *object* to this request *object* to the original request |
|
cacrollEventually, Prozac becomes normal Premium Member join:2002-07-25 Martinez, CA 1 edit |
to hopeflicker
said by hopeflicker:people need to give a reason why they object We don't want bigger avatards. We come here for insightful, scintillating conversation. Not to look at pictures that represent peoples wit (or lack of wit). Object. |
|
Mele20 Premium Member join:2001-06-05 Hilo, HI
1 recommendation |
Mele20
Premium Member
2008-Jul-23 8:54 am
said by cacroll:said by hopeflicker:people need to give a reason why they object We don't want bigger avatards. We come here for insightful, scintillating conversation. Not to look at pictures that represent peoples wit (or lack of wit). Object. Speak for yourself. Besides, what does the size (within reason i.e. 100x100 or 90x90) have to whether or not there is any meaningful conversation here? I thought avatars were to be a part of one's "handle" so what necessarily does "wit" have to do with your choice? I tried resizing the avatar I use at other forums to fit here and you can barely tell what it is. They are too small here for aging eyes yet posters are allowed to post horrible, gigantic, and offensive signatures. Why the inconsistency? Why can't I at least turn off the offensive signatures like I can the avatars? |
|
Hall MVM join:2000-04-28 Germantown, OH 1 edit |
to hopeflicker
said by hopeflicker: people need to give a reason why they object No they don't. People, like you, do need to read though... said by forum header :
Supplying reasons with your post is not necessary but is helpful to others. I think in most cases, what people have to say is more important than what avatar they feel is necessary to represent them. |
|
Rombus Premium Member join:2007-04-11 Opelika, AL |
to Mele20
said by Mele20:Speak for yourself. Besides, what does the size (within reason i.e. 100x100 or 90x90) have to whether or not there is any meaningful conversation here? I thought avatars were to be a part of one's "handle" so what necessarily does "wit" have to do with your choice? I tried resizing the avatar I use at other forums to fit here and you can barely tell what it is. They are too small here for aging eyes yet posters are allowed to post horrible, gigantic, and offensive signatures. Why the inconsistency? Why can't I at least turn off the offensive signatures like I can the avatars? By your logic, lets do away with avatars all together then. I mean if it doesn't really matter, why make them bigger or smaller? And exactly where here are the "Horrible, Gigantic, and Offensive" signatures? This forum limits sigs to 255 characters. I mean at MOST, it will look like this: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaa
Even then, it shows up smaller than primary text, and also wont show if the message is shorter than the sig. |
|
|
cacrollEventually, Prozac becomes normal Premium Member join:2002-07-25 Martinez, CA
2 recommendations |
to Mele20
said by Mele20:Besides, what does the size (within reason i.e. 100x100 or 90x90) have to whether or not there is any meaningful conversation here? I thought avatars were to be a part of one's "handle" so what necessarily does "wit" have to do with your choice? I tried resizing the avatar I use at other forums to fit here and you can barely tell what it is. They are too small here for aging eyes yet posters are allowed to post horrible, gigantic, and offensive signatures. Why the inconsistency? Why can't I at least turn off the offensive signatures like I can the avatars? This conversation, Mele, is about avatards. Not offensive signatures. You don't need to know what the avatards are, and in some cases, I suspect that we're best off not knowing. For some folks, I bet if you enlarge theirs up to 240 x 240, they still won't be recognisable. Or, you can turn them off completely. So you don't come here for insightful, scintillating conversation? You come here to look at the pretty pictures. Even though you don't provide one. Try the on-screen magnifier, Mele. And setup the right Fx add-on (how many do you have now) to block the offensive signatures. *Object* to folks without avatards trying to force 240 x 240 tards on every body else. |
|
Cheese Premium Member join:2003-10-26 Naples, FL |
Cheese
Premium Member
2008-Jul-23 11:01 am
said by cacroll:said by Mele20:Besides, what does the size (within reason i.e. 100x100 or 90x90) have to whether or not there is any meaningful conversation here? I thought avatars were to be a part of one's "handle" so what necessarily does "wit" have to do with your choice? I tried resizing the avatar I use at other forums to fit here and you can barely tell what it is. They are too small here for aging eyes yet posters are allowed to post horrible, gigantic, and offensive signatures. Why the inconsistency? Why can't I at least turn off the offensive signatures like I can the avatars? This conversation, Mele, is about avatards. Not offensive signatures. You don't need to know what the avatards are, and in some cases, I suspect that we're best off not knowing. For some folks, I bet if you enlarge theirs up to 240 x 240, they still won't be recognisable. Or, you can turn them off completely. So you don't come here for insightful, scintillating conversation? You come here to look at the pretty pictures. Even though you don't provide one. Try the on-screen magnifier, Mele. And setup the right Fx add-on (how many do you have now) to block the offensive signatures. *Object* to folks without avatards trying to force 240 x 240 tards on every body else. Sign/Object! It's avatars, not avatards, it's not a retarded avatar! |
|
cacrollEventually, Prozac becomes normal Premium Member join:2002-07-25 Martinez, CA |
cacroll
Premium Member
2008-Jul-23 11:04 am
said by Cheese:It's avatars, not avatards, it's not a retarded avatar! Who was I enjoying an insightful and scintillating conversation with? |
|
Cheese Premium Member join:2003-10-26 Naples, FL |
Cheese
Premium Member
2008-Jul-23 11:07 am
|
|
Warzau Premium Member join:2000-10-26 Naperville, IL |
to vaxvms
said by vaxvms:said by hopeflicker:people need to give a reason why they object *object* to this request *object* to the original request ditto on both |
|
LanikLab-nik
join:2001-06-25 San Francisco, CA
1 recommendation |
to Mele20
said by Mele20:Besides, what does the size (within reason i.e. 100x100 or 90x90) have to whether or not there is any meaningful conversation here? Why stop there why not do 500 x 500 then we'll have nothing but huge distracting avatars on this site with no meaningful posts. * object * |
|
La LunaFly With The Angels My Beloved Son Chris Premium Member join:2001-07-12 New Port Richey, FL |
to Mele20
said by Mele20:....yet posters are allowed to post horrible, gigantic, and offensive signatures. Why the inconsistency? Why can't I at least turn off the offensive signatures like I can the avatars? What are you talking about? Sigs are limited to so many characters and they can't be colored or have a different font size. Hence, they can't be "...gigantic...". Having said that, I agree the avatars should be a LITTLE bit bigger, I don't know why people keep exaggerating by saying huge, gigantic, large, as that's not what is being asked for. There's at least one avatar right in this thread that is totally undefinable because of the size. And there's many more scattered throughout the forums. At the very least, people should make sure their tiny avatar can be identified or don't bother using one. ~sign~ for a LITTLE bigger. |
|
Mele20 Premium Member join:2001-06-05 Hilo, HI |
Mele20
Premium Member
2008-Jul-25 5:13 am
said by La Luna:said by Mele20:....yet posters are allowed to post horrible, gigantic, and offensive signatures. Why the inconsistency? Why can't I at least turn off the offensive signatures like I can the avatars? What are you talking about? Sigs are limited to so many characters and they can't be colored or have a different font size. Hence, they can't be "...gigantic...". Your Sig is in GREEN FONT and it is BOLDED and in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Yours is one of the ones that bothers me so much. Your sig is composed of links and I do use green as my unvisited links color. However, that does not explain why a signature here can be, even if a link, in a color other than black. You did me a favor by capitalizing "LITTLE" just above your sig. Being in such close proximity, I can now see that your Sig is actually the same size as the capitalized "LITTLE" in your post. So, your Sig SHOUTS. This irritation exists on both Firefox and IE (although on IE the color of your sig is purple instead of green because I have IE exactly backwards from Fx as to what colors are used for visited and unvisited links and I need to fix that). When I see a post of yours I am immediately distracted from the content of your post by your "too much" sig. |
|
tmpchaosRequiescat in pace Numquam oblitus join:2000-04-28 Hoboken, NJ
1 recommendation |
tmpchaos
Numquam oblitus
2008-Jul-25 5:16 am
Unfortunately, that's due to choices you, yourself, have made. I'll bet that for most people it looks more like this:
which I don't find obnoxious in appearance.
|
|
1 edit |
to Mele20
Sig Not Bad |
Now I do not see an issue with this sig at all. The issue is your choice of colors and the size of your fonts. Well I understand that the font size is due to poor vision and understandable your taste in colors of links is another personal issue. Edit* Signatures can also be removed using RIP (Remove It Permanently) |
|
Mele20 Premium Member join:2001-06-05 Hilo, HI |
to tmpchaos
I didn't know that most folks have problems with seeing pages in the NORMAL manner of white background and black text. I find your black background and white text to be almost impossible to read. I thought most folks have a white background and black text. I am afraid that yellow for unvisited links would not show up very well on a white background.
I guess you are saying that I must use a blackground with yellow for unvisited links to make La Luna's signature inoffensive. Even if I could read the forums with a black background why should I make unvisited links at ALL SITES yellow just because there is problem with signatures at this site? Other sites would show their forums on a white background and the yellow unvisited links would be too pale to see.
The better, more logical solution would be as I have mentioned before: allow us to turn off signatures if need be. The best solution would be to allow us to turn off ONLY signatures that pose a problem for us and allow the rest.
I could block viewing La Luna's posts but that would be overkill. Besides, even when I disagree with her, I like reading her posts. I don't want to block them. I want to block her sig only. Or have it be non bolded and smaller. If she didn't use links as a sig then her sig would not be bright green.
I really don't see how you can say this problem is my "choice". I need to have a color for unvisited links (and visited ones) that I can easily see. That is not a "choice". It is a necessity. I'd say the "problem" is more hers for using links as a signature and then bolding them and using all capital letters. If she didn't bold and didn't use capital letters then I could probably live with the green color as the sig would be smaller and less intrusive. Or, I could say the problem is more a site problem by allowing bolding and capital letters and links as sigs or by the site allowing that but not also allowing those of us bothered by this to block those sigs. |
|
tmpchaosRequiescat in pace Numquam oblitus join:2000-04-28 Hoboken, NJ |
tmpchaos
Numquam oblitus
2008-Jul-25 6:25 am
Actually, I think the issue may be two fold- you're overriding the font size tag, which makes the sigs look like regular text, rather than the small they're intended to be (your choice), and your monitor settings are too contrasty (again, your choice). The background I use is not black, which I would find annoying. The theme I use (dimaging) uses a hex value of 222222 for the background. If you see that as black, I would certainly check your monitor settings. |
|
Mele20 Premium Member join:2001-06-05 Hilo, HI |
to Grail Knight
said by Grail Knight:Now I do not see an issue with this sig at all. The issue is your choice of colors and the size of your fonts. Well I understand that the font size is due to poor vision and understandable your taste in colors of links is another personal issue. The choice of color for unvisited links has to be a color I can easily see. It is not that I hate aqua or pale yellow, etc. It is not a matter of my "taste" in colors. Why not either allow those of us bothered by sigs like this one to turn them off or not allow bolding and all capital letters for sigs that are also links? I have not meant to imply, like you appear to think I did, that everyone finds La Luna's sig offensive/irritating/distracting, etc. Of course not. I do think though that those of us who don't have great vision should have a viable solution to a problem like this. I do NOT have Low Vision under the terms of Americans With Disabilities Act but I do have very nearsighted (no longer correctable to better than 20/40 in one eye and 20/60 in the other and even less correctable when wearing my eyeglasses rather than my contact lenses that I cannot wear all the time anymore), aging eyes with cataracts not yet ready for surgery so my opthamologist says. I think that those who do fall under ADA, and others with problems like mine, should have some better solution than blocking someone's posts because of their signature or being told that their "taste" in colors is a personal issue which implies that it is my fault that I have a problem with her signature and implies that the problem would go away if I change my "taste" in colors. This site has so many wonderful choices that each member can use or not use for how they see the site that it just seems to me that be able to turn off certain sigs could just be added to the already great ways we can individualize our experience here. |
|
Mele20 |
to tmpchaos
Perhaps it looks black to me because of my cataracts. Cataracts are known to distort colors. I don't know if they distort black color or not but I recall my mother saying when she had her first cataract surgery that she was so astounded at how gorgeous colors were after the surgery especially blues. She is an artist and very aware of all shades of colors and yet she was not aware of how much the cataracts had affected her color vision.
On IE I cannot over ride the font size for the sigs yet even on IE the sig is too large, bolded, in all caps. I do choose a large font size on Fx. That is out of NECESSITY. I cannot read anything in a smaller font. I can't use IE at forums because IE will not give me a large font for text boxes such as this one so I can't read what I am typing. Even so, the sig is still large on IE where I cannot choose a minimum size font. It seems like you are saying I should just not use the internet because I don't have perfect eyesight. I don't understand why you keep saying it is my "choice" as though I could choose a small font. I cannot do that. I don't have the choices that folks like you with great eyesight have. There are aids for those with Low Vision but my eyesight is not poor enough to fall under ADA and Low Vision. If I try to use Low Vision aids (except for using 120 dpi on a monitor with 1280x1024), those are over kill....very heavy magnification that I don't need.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the lack of understanding as even Microsoft folks working on making IE8 ADA acceptable can't seem to grasp the problem with IE text boxes. |
|
|
to Mele20
A simple I have issues with colors would be sufficient.
I already told you how to hide the signatures using RIP just like I told members years ago to use ABP to hide Avatars. You can also use Element Hiding Helper which is from the dev of ABP if you do not like RIP.
If the site wants to offer members choices to hide sigs fine but until then there are other options available if you know what you are looking for and doing. |
|
tmpchaosRequiescat in pace Numquam oblitus join:2000-04-28 Hoboken, NJ |
to Mele20
I can't help you with the IE issues, unfortunately- it isn't made for my OS. I would say, however, that others have similar (or worse) vision issues, and have either figured out workarounds or have learned to live with them. I myself have vision issues, but had the advantage of being able to create a theme that isn't hard for me to read. |
|
fatnesssubtle
join:2000-11-17 fishing
2 recommendations |
to Mele20
said by Mele20:I really don't see how you can say this problem is my "choice". The signature is in smaller text that the post. You made it display larger on your screen. Then you complained about it being so large. That is the simple explanation. I really wish you would pause sometimes and look at what you've chosen to do with your machine and browser before you say the site is doing something inconvenient or wrong. Most of the time it ends up that you're having an issue with your own settings in this or that. Pausing a bit before posting would allow you (and us) to concentrate on those things only caused by the site. |
|
Hall MVM join:2000-04-28 Germantown, OH |
Hall
MVM
2008-Jul-25 10:24 am
said by fatness: I really wish you would pause sometimes and look at what you've chosen to do with your machine and browser before you say the site is doing something inconvenient or wrong. Most of the time it ends up that you're having an issue with your own settings in this or that. Gets old, doesn't it ? Anytime someone changes things from the default setups, it's damn near impossible for people, i.e. website designers, to accommodate everyone. |
|
La LunaFly With The Angels My Beloved Son Chris Premium Member join:2001-07-12 New Port Richey, FL 1 edit
1 recommendation |
to Mele20
Looks normal size to me, other than it is bolded, and it's certainly not green! Why is my sig three times it's real size in your screenshot??!! You do know that your DSLR theme changes link colors to go with the theme, right?
I'm not sure how many times you have to be told that your issues are self created with all your "tweaking". You can do what you want, but you shouldn't complain when all that tweaking borks things up. Odd tweaks don't always work well on every site across the board.
|
|
|
to fatness
said by fatness:OK, I'll give one. I like reading what people have to say. I don't like seeing bigger and bigger pictures crowding out what they say. I agree it is not even necessary to see your picture or (avatar) to read a post. Importance is placed on the content of the article or post. Not on what kind of avatar you have. I personally could do without avatars in the first place. IMO from what I have seen some Avatars either have a sexual overtone/innuendo or some seem vulgar & even have unpleasant images. Overall though most Avatars I see are in good taste. |
|