| reply to fatness
Re: Larger Avatars said by fatness:
34 is a nice size.
So is 36.
*sign* loudly and exuberantly. |
|
 IcEr3KPremium
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 |
|
 GbcueP.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | reply to drake
1 is such a nice number! |
|
|
|
 C_Kill The SocialistsPremium
join:2001-03-19
kudos:3 | reply to drake
35 x 35 would be better |
|
 drakeOverdosed on confidencePremium,MVM
join:2002-06-10
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:5
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!  |
|
 RocksterPremium
join:2002-03-03
Brisbane AU | 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. |
|
 tehGekke KraaiPremium
join:2003-03-21
Malaysia | 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. |
|
 koolman2Premium
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? |
|
 Subaru1-3-2-4Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT | reply to drake
man the old sites i came from had like Avatar sizes of like 120x120..
--
(sig was too long) |
|
 GodTHE Dslr TrollPremium
join:2002-07-01
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to Sparrow
Re: Avatar Gurus Rule! 50 x 50 please |
|
| reply to drake
Re: Larger Avatars *sign* for 50x50, or any enlargement.......
I find many avatars so small, I really can't even make out what they're supposed to be. Would not care if posting sig space was reduced to accommodate larger avatars. Space could be saved by changing "Location" to "Loc.", "From", or eliminating it altogether.
--
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." |
|
 usa2kBlessedPremium,MVM
join:2003-01-26
Redford, MI
kudos:3 | reply to drake
Have you noticed only Nay-Sayers seem to want to throw 60x60 rhetoric into the fray? |
|
| reply to IcEr3K
Uhhh...IcEr3K....you do realize that your avatar is 40 x 50? |
|
 nilJava Geek
join:2000-11-27
kudos:1
Webmasters and Dev..
Forum Feature Requ..
| reply to teh
said by teh:
Why not go for broke, stop having avatars totally and then rename the avatar/graphics help forum to just graphics forum.
Don't think that I haven't been tempted these last couple of days
You guys need to realize one thing.. it's not a simple "flip a switch" and ding, avatars are a different size.. It takes work and dealing with layout issues (and that's not easy).. and figuring out how to fit all the text that's next to avatars now elsewhere since 50x50 would push the usernames off the side.. so either would have to cut the space for posts (that's ridiculous, avatars aren't the point of the forums) or elongate the user-side of information even further therefore making a 2-line post take up more space than it should.
I can go on explaining why it's not as easy as everyone appears to think but nobody ever reads the thread before replying anyway.. so why bother.
No major site changes will be happening in the next few weeks, we just got new servers and need to stabilize things, sorry. Petition again later.
--
Life is too short to be boring |
|
 big gregPremium,MVM,Ex-Mod 2005-6
join:2003-10-11
Boston, MA | I'm not sure why everyone is so upset about this, but the avatar change certainly seems to have touched a nerve around here.
said by nil:
You guys need to realize one thing.. it's not a simple "flip a switch" and ding, avatars are a different size.. It takes work and dealing with layout issues (and that's not easy).. and figuring out how to fit all the text that's next to avatars now elsewhere since 50x50 would push the usernames off the side.. so either would have to cut the space for posts (that's ridiculous, avatars aren't the point of the forums) or elongate the user-side of information even further therefore making a 2-line post take up more space than it should.
I totally agree that changing avatar size is a non-trivial thing. I'm a technical person and I can understand that it will require substantial changes to the existing forum code.
On the other hand, I have seen lots of layout and technical changes in the past several months, and I appreciate each and every one of them. Changing avatar size would be a project but it wouldn't approach the complexity of other things that have happened (like the "I see people" change that started all this.) Based on the changes in the past, I know the staff there can bring it off, if you wanted to. I can also understand that avatar size is probably not the staff's top priority.
said by nil:
I can go on explaining why it's not as easy as everyone appears to think but nobody ever reads the thread before replying anyway.. so why bother.
Why bother? Because there are at least a few of us who understand the technical side of things, even if we are clueless about the aesthetic or political side of things.
said by nil:
No major site changes will be happening in the next few weeks, we just got new servers and need to stabilize things, sorry. Petition again later.
I have noticed that things are running much faster (for me) even when the server load is in the red. (I'm only 10 ms away from NAC, I guess RCN peers with them.)
I just want to tell you nil  that you and justin (and whoever else was responsible) are really doing a great job with a very busy site. My congrats to all of you on a job very well done. |
|
usa2kBlessedPremium,MVM
join:2003-01-26
Redford, MI
kudos:3 Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
 ·VOIPo
| reply to nil
said by nil:
... You guys need to realize one thing.. it's not a simple "flip a switch" and ding, avatars are a different size.. It takes work and dealing with layout issues (and that's not easy).. ...
Then why not standardize on 40x50 which should simplify from the former 40x(40 to 50) spec. ? 50x50 started with Justin's early comment on wanting Avatars to be square.
»I quite like this one
This will save the A/G forum even more rework, and you already have that "switch" don't you?
--
Jim -- USA2K ... Voip on FWD & Vonage ... SEE: »www.jn2k.net
PSTN is a Legacy Gateway to VoIP, the new "phone service" |
|
 fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14
Bright House Netwo..
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
Rants, Raves, and ..
| said by usa2k:
This will save the A/G forum even more rework, and you already have that "switch" don't you?
Don't you read anything? said by nil:
You guys need to realize one thing.. it's not a simple "flip a switch" and ding, avatars are a different size..
--
that's the way it goes. |
|
fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14 Host:
Bright House Netwo..
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
Rants, Raves, and ..
| reply to Rockster
said by Rockster:
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.
They absolutely will push for that. It's already been requested, and it will be again if/when av's get bigger. There are a lot of people who post and request things over time who are not members of the avatar forum stopping by on a single issue.
--
that's the way it goes. |
|
usa2kBlessedPremium,MVM
join:2003-01-26
Redford, MI
kudos:3 Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·VOIPo
| reply to fatness
said by fatness:
Don't you read anything? ... You guys need to realize one thing.. it's not a simple "flip a switch" and ding, avatars are a different size.. ...
Yes id did read the post. That is why I used the phrase. I think that was obvious. My point was you seemed to have the 40x50 worked out before, so it would seem that the work was already done.
Was I unclear. My apoolgies if I was. I was trying to be practical. I am not a professional programmer, but I do know enough to be dangerous.
All the customization on "I see people" seemed to be a major undertaking that likely would have dwarfed keeping something you already had. That was what I tried to convey.
--
Jim -- USA2K ... Voip on FWD & Vonage ... SEE: »www.jn2k.net
PSTN is a Legacy Gateway to VoIP, the new "phone service" |
|
| reply to fatness
Fatness, when did most of the artists in the avatar/graphics forum ever push for larger avatars. I think that alone should show something. All we are asking is for them to be restored to what they were last week. But since it has to be square, we are asking for 50x50.
Nil, I understand how much work is involved but do you understand the how much work we do? Some animations take a couple of hours to complete. And that's just for one avatar and all the artistes that post in that forum equals really countless hours of work. We've made graphics for this site, avatars for users and mods alike, banners for sites, written tutorials, the list really will go on and on. We do it with a smile and willingly but for someone to render most of our work useless is a piss off and I hope you understand.
Everyone seems to be really mad about this, even the people opposing this request. It's all just really silly. Users who have never stepped a foot in the avatar forum seem so angry about 50x50 avatars. It makes no sense to me, really doesn't. 
Every time a request to bring back the posts on the side has been denied, "only post whores want those things" really, to see people level and how many posts they have, I remember tons of people, mods included in this thread saying the same thing. "It'll start pissing contests" So really, to add those pissing contest feature in and reduce the avatar size is ironic. Some people have been saying that avatars are just for show and only 15 year olds care about it. There was really no need for that flame but people will be people. People in this thread need to stop making personal comments about other users, it is petty and will only bring this topic more off topic. Please conduct yourselves in a proper manner.
--
In the naked light I saw, 10,000 people maybe more, people talking without speaking, people hearing without listening. |
|
