dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5
share rss forum feed


Insight6

join:2012-08-25

1 edit
reply to Msradell

Re: DSLR Avatars; Telephone Customer Service Representatives

Wow it looks like all of the Linus Van Pelts of the DSLR world have had a constructive criticism or suggestion of a change regarding their blanket. Their response is not surprising.

Meanwhile how about those customer service representatives? (Both US and outsource.) LOL.

I would speculate that the reason, and it is just speculation, why DSLR doesn't offer the OPTION of larger avatars is because the forum software or setup either won't permit it or in order to make the change to allow it if possible the software is so old that it would be to big of a project, literally a project, to do so.

As for the argument about the extra bandwidth--gosh, I seriously can't tell if people are joking when they say that or are delusional, or uh, just misinformed in terms of relevancy.

Meanwhile about those CS Reps!


Weirdal
Premium
join:2003-06-28
Grand Island, NE
kudos:21

1 recommendation

said by Insight6:

I would speculate that the reason, and it is just speculation, why DSLR doesn't offer the OPTION of larger avatars is because the forum software or setup either won't permit it or in order to make the change to allow it if possible the software is so old that it would be to big of a project, literally a project, to do so.

Here's a real answer for you...

Avatars here used to be between 40x30 and 40x85 (possibly larger?). The user-info box to the left of posts was standardized for everybody and having a fixed-width worked well for the layout. The avatars could be expanded downward without screwing up the layout so we were allowed a variable height. Eventually that restriction was changed to 40x30 - 40x50 for some reason.

In 2004, the "I See People" feature was implemented. (see this thread) You do not have access to this since you're not premium. This allows users to create a completely customized user info boxes by using their own html. ALL avatars were resized to 40x40 (and the restrictions for new ones were changed) so that people wouldn't have to worry about odd-sized avatars screwing up their layouts.

In 2005, after years of bitching by members, Justin implemented 50x50 avatars. Every new avatar must be 50x50, but there was still the question of what to do with the grandfathered 40x40 avatars (and also the even-older odd-sized ones). The solution was to keep resizing the tall avatars to 40x40 and display the 40x40 ones at their native res. I seem to recall a short period where everything was resized to 50x50, but that didn't last long. So now there is effectively two possible avatar sizes you can encounter on here, and you have to design your "I See People" settings to work with both sizes. Since it's only 10px, most layouts didn't have any problems with the larger avatars.

That brings us to where we are today. Adding significantly larger avatars would screw up a lot of people's I See People settings. It's difficult to design a good user box that makes effective use of space when you don't know if you'll be seeing a 40x40 or 100x100 avatar. Even if you made the larger size mandatory and just upscaled everything to be consistent, people would still have to redesign their user boxes, which they haven't had to touch for the past seven years.

So your request would be much more reasonable if it weren't for that one site feature.
--
»[Info] The DSLR Orangeface extension 2.0!


Insight6

join:2012-08-25
Thanks for the input on the CS reps!

As for the size of avatars--the standard in most modern forum sites/boards and so on is users are limited to a MAXIMUM size for their Avatar and are significantly limited to shape--the finished image usually has to be square or very close to it.

So the maximum many be the industry standard of 100 x 100 or 120 x 120 but the member can choose a 50 x 50 if they want--just as long as it conforms to the shape requirement.

Thank you sincerely for both the quality of your explanation and the time you took to write and post it.

However, it appears to me in interpreting your post that it seems by inference and some fact to indirectly substantiate what I said.

The current avatar 50 x 50, way small by industry standard, size is on the current, "clunky" outdated forum software just too complicated to offer up what I explain above in terms of choice.


vaxvms
ferroequine fan
Premium
join:2005-03-01
Wormtown
kudos:3
industry standard ???


Weirdal
Premium
join:2003-06-28
Grand Island, NE
kudos:21
reply to Insight6
said by Insight6:

The current avatar 50 x 50, way small by industry standard, size is on the current, "clunky" outdated forum software just too complicated to offer up what I explain above in terms of choice.

I've read this sentence a few times now and still don't know what you're trying to say.

The forum software here is custom-built, and certainly robust enough to allow for avatars of any size. After all, avatar sizes have changed plenty of times in the past. The problem is that this forum, unlike any other forum that I know of, allows users to create a custom user-box layout that has very few limitations at all. If you can't enforce a standard user-box layout, you can't radically change avatar sizes because it will screw up layout for MANY people.

For example, here's my custom layout I designed:



Increasing avatar size would force me to change that layout completely. A lot of other users would be in the same boat.
--
»[Info] The DSLR Orangeface extension 2.0!