dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed


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

2 recommendations

reply to drake

Re: Larger Avatars

I doubt avatars will ever be 50 pixels wide; 40 is plenty.

As to increasing the height, they're shorter now to make room for all the user-defined customizations available now and discussed in this thread: »[request] I quite like this one

Those customizations were a result of many feature requests here. Is your suggestion to take all of them away to make more room for avatars? If so, I *object*. I can see a 40x40 avatar just fine, and think it is less important than other information in the box to the left of the post screen.
--
Oh man, I've ruined everything. I know. I'll go on tour with the Dead. They'll accept me. They’ll have to die sometime though. What then? I know. I'll be a Janitor.


Sarah
Premium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2001-01-09
New York, NY
kudos:6
Reviews:
·MegaNet Communic..

3 recommendations

said by fatness:
Is your suggestion to take all of them away to make more room for avatars? If so, I *object*.

I'm having a hard time seeing where anyone has suggested that, fatness See Profile.

The difference in terms of space taken up on the page is actually quite small, but I do believe it would increase legibility in a lot of avatars. Keeping the limit to 5k would make sure the pages don't load slower.

I attached a 40-pixel square and a 50-pixel square to show everyone what the sizes look like in comparison to each other.

I *sign* to 50x50.
--
Got an idle CPU? Check out Team Helix!


fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14
said by Sarah:
I'm having a hard time seeing where anyone has suggested that, fatness See Profile.
It's called a "question". I'm sure the original poster will answer it when he/she has time; you did not. Where will the room come from for larger avatars? What will be given up to make way for them?
--
Oh man, I've ruined everything. I know. I'll go on tour with the Dead. They'll accept me. They’ll have to die sometime though. What then? I know. I'll be a Janitor.


Sarah
Premium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2001-01-09
New York, NY
kudos:6
Reviews:
·MegaNet Communic..

1 recommendation

The size difference is about one line of normal sized text. I don't see where great sacrifices need to be made, or huge revisions in the way the forums will look.

I'm not sure that jumping to the conclusion that all of the new customizations need to be thrown away to fit that in is really warranted. That would never have even occurred to me.

Perhaps instead of squeezing everyone down to 40x40, we could keep roughly the same area as we had and still make it square by going to 45x45. Or perhaps 50x50 can be allowed, and a new customization option added to squeeze them to 40x40 if the user prefers to see them small.

It seems obvious to me that a lot of users are unhappy with the new avatar size... I have received a lot of negative feedback about it via IM and people are posting a lot in the forums (not to mention all the new avatars). Just trying to work in the system to bring about change...
--
Got an idle CPU? Check out Team Helix!


big greg
Premium,MVM,Ex-Mod 2005-6
join:2003-10-11
Boston, MA

2 recommendations

reply to Sarah
There are several asthetic reasons why Justin would want to support old 40x50 or 50x50 avatars.

If you look at this page »/who?cat=Moderators you can see that there is a variety of 40x40 and 40x50 avatars, and they look just fine when shown in a stacked layout.

I don't think there is any technical reason why they can't be 40x50 or 50x50. The file size is already restricted, so the size of the displayed avatar doesn't make any difference in storage space or bandwidth used.

Right now the code that renders the poster's information only includes width=40 for the img tag for the avatar. This lets 40x50 and 40x40 avatars work.

If you use the how I see people feature then width=40 and height=40 is set on the img tag (which is really nice, because it avoids that ugly "Firebird Jig" as images are filled in).

The avatar width and height could be kept in the same database table that holds the member's join date, level, and posting name. This could easily be changed to add the proper width= and height= attributes on the IMG tag for each avatar. This would make the database slightly larger but shouldn't be much of a performance impact.

The people in the »Avatar/Graphics Help have remarked that they will see a flurry of requests for people to resize their 40x50s into 40x40. I think if 50x50 is allowed they will see a flurry of people wanting to resize their 40x50 (or 40x40) into a 50x50, so I'm not sure that argument is all that valid.

However the 50x50 does allow for a much larger canvas, even though it doesn't appear all that larger when displayed on your screen. The 40x40 (1600 px) allows you a lot less real estate than 50x50 (2000 px) or 50x50 (2500 px). The 50x50 size doesn't overwhelm the posts like some sites that use larger (100x100) avatars.

Still the cool avatars I see on this site are really entertaining and tell you a lot more about a person than just their posting name. When I read the messages, I often remember people's avatars even though I forget their name. If the avatars are kept the same size - or even slightly grow to 50x50, I think that there is little negative impact to the site technically but a postitive impact asthetically.

After considering all that, I *sign* to continue to support the historical 40x50 avatars. I also *sign* to support 50x50 avatars.


Jaime
Premium
join:2001-06-03
Huntington Beach, CA
reply to fatness
said by fatness:
It's called a "question". I'm sure the original poster will answer it when he/she has time; you did not. Where will the room come from for larger avatars? What will be given up to make way for them?

I really could care less about the size seeing that I like my current avatar but there seems to be plenty of room to accommodate a 50x50 avatar. For me the "location: what-ever-is-here" takes up much more width in the user information part of the posts than an avatar will ever do. The only way I can see room will be taken away is if they have it set to only avatar set in a persons information area and even then it's only 10 pixels.
--
Join the BBR BF 1942 clan


fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14
reply to Sarah
said by Sarah:
It seems obvious to me that a lot of users are unhappy with the new avatar size...
A lot of people were unhappy previous to that with different information being unavailable/too small in the "box" to the left of the message area. Perhaps you missed all those threads since they did not involve avatars.
said by examples of Feature Requests over last several months:
I don't want to see Posting tags.
I like Posting tags.
I want to see Joined Dates.
I don't want to see Joined Dates.
How do I know what level people are on?
Why can't this text be smaller?
Why can't this text be larger?Why can't this text move here?
So my question remains: if avatars are made 50 pixels wide, which of those now-user-customizable views will be lost? Or will it cut into the message area? The images above show views that would be affected by increased avatar width.
--
Oh man, I've ruined everything. I know. I'll go on tour with the Dead. They'll accept me. They’ll have to die sometime though. What then? I know. I'll be a Janitor.


FastEddie
Premium,Ex-Mod 2001-13
join:2000-12-29
Channel Z
kudos:6


said by fatness:
So my question remains: if avatars are made 50 pixels wide, which of those now-user-customizable views will be lost?




Just some of my observations.

Since the "stars" were done away with that added space, so would losing the "%c Clubs, %L Level and %p Posts" be such a big loss?

•Since the posts aren't real time updated and they were removed once before I wouldn't mind if they were gone.

•The "Level" seems totally useless to me, unless someone is in this just for posting for "Level".

•As for the "Clubs" icon, we'll the stars are gone but they were left to keep the club icon. They do enjoy the benifit of the "Join Club" in the left menu.


--
»»»Press«««


Sarah
Premium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2001-01-09
New York, NY
kudos:6
Reviews:
·MegaNet Communic..
reply to fatness
said by fatness:
So my question remains: if avatars are made 50 pixels wide, which of those now-user-customizable views will be lost? Or will it cut into the message area? The images above show views that would be affected by increased avatar width.
Ditto what The skrote said. A line or two will wrap if the user has their settings a certain way. I really don't see how a huge impact will be made.

I am going to bow out and let the users explain things from here on out. I'm not sure why, but there seems to be a problem here that I don't understand.
--
Got an idle CPU? Check out Team Helix!


Andy8
B B R Bash Bush Regularly
Premium
join:2002-01-26
::1

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to fatness
said by fatness:
Where will the room come from for larger avatars? What will be given up to make way for them?

Room??
See that's the shear beauty of customizing your own view now.

I seem to have PLENTY of room to show a wider (and even taller) avatar.:p

What I can't get now is what difference does it make as to how high/wide it is, when I could very well add a bunch of "bracket return" tags into my setup, and make everyone's area seem a mile long. (If I wanted to, that is. )

*sign* btw...:D
--
Maybe I DO have too much spare time....