dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9178
share rss forum feed


splix
Premium
join:2002-02-19
Oakton, VA
reply to sashwa

Re: Larger Avatars

But the fact is they aren't "large", they are only 10 pixels biggger. I still don't understand why it's such a big deal.
--
splix.net


sashwa
Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-29
Alcatraz
kudos:19
Reviews:
·Comcast
For one thing nil just said that it would make a lot of extra work for her. And I don't understand why it's such a big deal in making them bigger Especially if it's going to make a whole lot of extra work for nil or anyone else who will have to do it.

sash
--
Visit the San Francisco Bay Area Forum


koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK
reply to drake
I read a good part of page 1 (in 100 posts/page view).

I'm pretty sure I would like 50x50, and I don't see why people are so against it. It's just 10 pixels, like everyone says, so what's wrong?

*sign*
--
Why download songs for FREE when you can BUY the same thing for $14?


IcEr3K
Premium
join:2001-01-19
Los Angeles, CA

1 recommendation

reply to drake
Ok... by making it 50x50 from 40x40... you are increasing the visual size by 25%, and percentage wise.. that's a lot!

I disagree with a larger avatar, and those who have those weird '50x50' avatars should consider getting used to the new size change.

Apparently justin is creating a DSLR Revolution, revolutions causes changes, and as time comes, people will respect the change.

You'll get used to the new avatar size, just wait and see.
--
icer3k.net


bokamba
Chengdu Rocks
Premium
join:2002-04-05
Falls Church, VA
reply to drake
I object.

I think 40x40 is fine. 50x50 is not much bigger, but the bigger they get, the more obnoxious they're likely to become.


usa2k
Blessed
Premium,MVM
join:2003-01-26
moving soon
kudos:3
reply to IcEr3K
said by IcEr3K:
..., and those who have those weird '50x50' avatars should consider ...

You mean 40x50.
»What's going on? has a good summary from the A/G forum that will get many requests for help.
--
Jim -- USA2K ... Voip on FWD & Vonage ... SEE: »www.jn2k.net
PSTN is a Legacy Gateway to VoIP, the new "phone service"


IcEr3K
Premium
join:2001-01-19
Los Angeles, CA
I've read some 40x50, and 50x50 (like your avatar)... :\
--
icer3k.net


Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Foothill Ranch, CA
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to koolman2
said by koolman2:
It's just 10 pixels, like everyone says, so what's wrong?
Because Justin said no, and we are guests here.

Sometimes when I visit a friend's house, I ask for a Diet Coke. But if they only have Diet Pepsi, I don't usually carry a picket sign that says "YOU MUST SERVE ME DIET COKE".

Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site


PetePuma
How many lumps do you want
Premium,MVM
join:2002-06-13
Arlington, VA
reply to splix
said by splix:
But the fact is they aren't "large", they are only 10 pixels biggger. I still don't understand why it's such a big deal.

Of course, you're making the argument in reverse as well. If it's on 10 pixels, then 40x40 should be fine since they're only 10 pixels smaller.

Something to consider: Of all the major changes made to this site in the last year (that anyone complained about), how many of them were changed back to the way they were previously?

*neutral*
--
I don't want no tea, it gives me a headache.


Weirdal
Premium
join:2003-06-28
Grand Island, NE
kudos:21
10 pixels is a whole lot when creating an avatar.
even though it may not look like much to the untrained eye, when magnified to 600%, it is a whole lot . and that is how most animated avatars are created. every pixel counts
--
My blog


usa2k
Blessed
Premium,MVM
join:2003-01-26
moving soon
kudos:3
reply to IcEr3K
said by IcEr3K:
Ok... by making it 50x50 from 40x40... you are increasing the visual size by 25%, and percentage wise.. that's a lot!

You have it backwards! Ok...by making it 40x50 to 40x40... you are decreasing the visual size by 25%(400 pixles), and percentage wise.. that's a lot!

To retain the original size but square to suit Justin, the 50x50 would be 25% larger than the 40x50 (1/5th of the total(500 pixles) extra when all is said and done)
--
Jim -- USA2K ... Voip on FWD & Vonage ... SEE: »www.jn2k.net
PSTN is a Legacy Gateway to VoIP, the new "phone service"


mlemon
Need Sleeeeeep
Premium
join:2002-07-02
Kansas City, MO
reply to drake
50X50 *sign*

At least 40X50 *sign*

ftzsee
Premium
join:2001-11-22

1 edit
reply to drake
*object* to any re-sizing of the avatars to allow for more than 40x40, as loudly, rudely, and profanely as possible.


IcEr3K
Premium
join:2001-01-19
Los Angeles, CA
reply to usa2k
Hey.. but if you guys get the approval of this, you guys might go further and go for 60x60 avatars.. and we can't allow that.

The max we'll agree to is 42x42.
--
icer3k.net


Weirdal
Premium
join:2003-06-28
Grand Island, NE
kudos:21
said by IcEr3K:
Hey.. but if you guys get the approval of this, you guys might go further and go for 60x60 avatars.. and we can't allow that.

The max we'll agree to is 42x42.

50X50= great
60X60= too big even for me
I hope they never get bigger than 50X50 (i think that is the perfect size)
--
My blog


IcEr3K
Premium
join:2001-01-19
Los Angeles, CA
Okay, I know you are running at 800x600 resolution.. can you imagine every single avatar at 50x50.. that's a lot of screen resolution used for avatars!

For every single avatar on the section of the page, you would use 0.521% of your screen real estate!
--
icer3k.net


fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14

2 recommendations

reply to drake
34 is a nice size.
So is 36.


Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Foothill Ranch, CA
kudos:5
said by fatness:
So is 36.
Oh, I C


IcEr3K
Premium
join:2001-01-19
Los Angeles, CA

1 recommendation

reply to fatness
said by fatness:
34 is a nice size.
So is 36.


*sign*
--
icer3k.net


Weirdal
Premium
join:2003-06-28
Grand Island, NE
kudos:21
reply to drake
I cant imagine running any higher of a resolution. if i did, the current size would be tiny
I wouldent mind them bigger. I'm used to my resolution, used to everything being big. (now, if i ran a higher resolution for a week, then switched back- I would think everything is huge )
--
My blog

ftzsee
Premium
join:2001-11-22

2 recommendations

reply to fatness
said by fatness:
34 is a nice size.
So is 36.


*sign* loudly and exuberantly.


IcEr3K
Premium
join:2001-01-19
Los Angeles, CA
reply to Weirdal
exactly.. we are used to small avatars, we don't need huge ones anymore.
--
icer3k.net


Gbcue
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
reply to drake
1 is such a nice number!


C_
Kill The Socialists
Premium
join:2001-03-19
kudos:3
reply to drake
35 x 35 would be better


drake
Overdosed on confidence
Premium,MVM
join:2002-06-10
Baldwin, NY
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit
said by C_:
35 x 35 would be better

If you want your avatar smaller then make your avatar 35 x 35 then!


Rockster
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Brisbane AU

1 recommendation

said by drake:
said by C_:
35 x 35 would be better

This guy is high... If you want your avatar smaller then make your avatar 35 x 35 then!

Yeah I agree totally.

For everyone who thinks that if 50x50 is accepted, people would then push for 60x60, you really ought to read some or all of the previous posts here.

We're not asking for larger avatars per se, we're asking for a return to being able to upload and view 40x50 avatars (and yes I know 40x50 can still be viewed in the old way but no one can upload one and non-premium members don't have a library to store one in). Since Justin has expressed a desire for all avatars to be square (all worship the mighty square) the best compromise (and not losing the 50 pixel height maximum we've had for years) is 50x50.


teh
Gekke Kraai
Premium
join:2003-03-21
Malaysia

1 recommendation

reply to fatness
said by fatness:
34 is a nice size.
So is 36.


Why not go for broke, stop having avatars totally and then rename the avatar/graphics help forum to just graphics forum.


koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK
reply to Steve
said by Steve:
said by koolman2:
It's just 10 pixels, like everyone says, so what's wrong?
Because Justin said no, and we are guests here.

I understand that, and I respect his decisions as much as possible. Oh well. Like people have said, I will get used to it. And it's true, too!
--
Why download songs for FREE when you can BUY the same thing for $14?


Subaru
1-3-2-4
Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT
kudos:1
reply to drake
man the old sites i came from had like Avatar sizes of like 120x120..
--
(sig was too long)


God
THE Dslr Troll
Premium
join:2002-07-01
Colorado Springs, CO

1 recommendation

reply to Sparrow

Re: Avatar Gurus Rule!

50 x 50 please