 DustynPremium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:10 | Avatars - Bigger Can we have slightly larger avatars?
As you can see by my name, we have a generous amount of space that we can occupy.
50x50 or 60x60 would be nice?
I don't think this is an unreasonable size request?
Avatar restrictions are REALLY small as it is. Especially when viewing this website at a 1024x768 resolution.
I have a really difficult time re-sampling (re-sizing) my images to meet the guidelines of the current avatar size. My avatars never reflect the work I put into them unfortunately.
Hope you will *sign* my petition. 
--
"You have no idea what I am capable of. People who have tried to cross me, have lived to regret it... ~Michelle Stafford (Phyllis) |
|
 statestress magnetPremium,Mod
join:2002-02-08
Purgatory
kudos:6 | It's been discussed before:
»Larger Avatars
»Avatar Thought |
|
DustynPremium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:10
2 edits | I thought maybe the original issue could be brought up again to see if anyone has changed there minds. There are many that would like to see a new size change in avatars be passed by Justin. That's why I created a new motion. |
|
 dandelionPremium,MVM
join:2003-04-29
Germantown, TN
kudos:4
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to Dustyn
Will be happy to sign again though-sort of like going through the motions (sigh).:)
(maybe a different crop? 
--
want to know what I'm doing? |
|
|
|
 fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14 | reply to Dustyn
I'd really dislike having them take up any more screen space.
*object* |
|
 93388818It's cool, I'm takin it backPremium
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX | reply to Dustyn
I can't believe I'm publically admitting this, but I'm with fatness  on this one. |
|
 GeekNJPremium
join:2000-09-23
Waldwick, NJ | reply to Dustyn
Nah - object. |
|
 HawkPremium
join:2003-08-25
La Quinta, CA | reply to Dustyn
said by Dustyn:we have a generous amount of space that we can occupy. If I'm reading this correctly, that space is used and displayed differently using the "I see People" configurations. Some folks views are much different than others (C-Pic).
Larger avatars probably aren't going to happen but what would help is an slight increase in the file size limitation. Say from 5k to 7k. This would allow us to design smoother graphics and still stay within the 40X40 limitations. So, just to go through the motions again I
*sign* |
|
 tmpchaosRequiescat in pacePremium,Mod
join:2000-04-28
Hoboken, NJ | I'd *object* to physically larger avatars, but *sign* to a larger filesize. |
|
 JehuPrime AddictPremium
join:2002-09-13
MA
kudos:2 | reply to Dustyn
*object* |
|
 PacratOld and CrankyPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-10
Cortland, OH | reply to Dustyn
I *object* to beating a dead horse... over, and over, and over... ad nauseum!  |
|
 INTENS1Never Stop TryingPremium,MVM
join:2002-04-21
Midwest
kudos:2
1 edit | reply to Dustyn
Probably Has no chance of surviving, but I'll Sign in an attempt to keep this horse alive and prevent the "animal" cruelty it has received in the past.
--
Anticipate Nothing...Expect Everything |
|
1 edit | reply to tmpchaos
said by tmpchaos:I'd *object* to physically larger avatars, but *sign* to a larger filesize. I agree, 40X40 is workable, but a larger file size would be a definite *sign* for me. Squeezing anything over 32 colors into 15 frames is hard with the limits we have now.
at least 7000 bytes would be nice. |
|
| reply to Dustyn
Another ~sign~ for larger file size |
|
 sargeeldSgm RetiredPremium
join:2002-12-16
Raeford, NC | reply to Dustyn
I will *sign* for at least a filesize increase to 7k. |
|
 LU89Jersey DevilPremium
join:2003-05-24
@desk
kudos:1 | reply to Dustyn
Keep beating the dead horse, bigger avatars with a larger file size *sign* |
|
 nfxThe WirePremium
join:2001-05-21
Vancouver, BC
kudos:1 | reply to fatness
said by fatness:I'd really dislike having them take up any more screen space. *object* that's a pretty weak argument. Avatars can be completely removed with 'I See People'..
--
nfx |
|
fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14 | Not everyone can use "I see people". People who cannot will see the larger avatars, and I think it'll look crummy to them. |
|
dandelionPremium,MVM
join:2003-04-29
Germantown, TN
kudos:4 Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | said by fatness:Not everyone can use "I see people". People who cannot will see the larger avatars, and I think it'll look crummy to them. For those free members that don't have capability of I see people, that this would look bad , I'd disagree. They don't have all the other info written that some premium ones would, so it shouldn't make a big difference in size, and there ARE positives to becoming a premium member ( since this is a one time charge unlike most forums that require yearly membership, electing premium is very reasonable). 
I'd be interested in seeing how a 50X50 would look for premium (for those that elect to show avatars) and non-premium members-as is done now.
Also a possiblity of the show avatar feature: membership-elect to show avatar or not. non-membership-no shown avatar.
--
want to know what I'm doing? |
|
11337845Live free or diePremium
join:2002-12-20
Seattle, WA | reply to Dustyn
*sign*
50x50 wouldn't kill anyone. 40x40 is, by far, the smallest limit I've ever seen. Most places are at least 50, with an average of 75.
Also *sign* for the larger file size.
fatness , I also disagree that it would look "crummy." For those non-premium users who can't use the "I see people" feature, there is no possibility whatsoever that a 50x50 (or a 60x60 for that matter) avatar would widen the margins anymore than happens currently due to people's usernames and other sidebar info.
As for those premium users who do change their settings, they can easily disable avatars. As a matter of fact, I might suggest an additional switch for the "I see people" setup that allows a premium user to resize all avatars to their desire (up or down).
--
Falafel We may have lost this battle, but the war is far from over. You have only made my resolve stronger and deeper. |
|
