PDA

View Full Version : Avatars



rubah
04-15-2008, 07:08 AM
I think we should have 100x100 avatars. We seem to be practically the only place on the intarweb that has such small avatars (besides devart). It has never looked bad when big avatars have been given out, and it's not like the forum styles are hurting for space. Besides, we might as well make the post bit longer because people's sigs take up so much space compared to the postbit (that's the stuff with your name, av, custom title, actual title, and location and post time)

We wouldn't even have to up the file size. 19 kb is plenty.

Some people complain that it wouldn't look even and pretty, well it's not even and pretty now! A lot of people use sprites for avs and those aren't 60x60. And sprites are about the only thing that looks good that small anyways.

Ouch!
04-15-2008, 07:31 AM
This is a valid concern, and one that has been bothering me for quite some time. Since I'm not the most photoshop savvy individual ever. Sometimes when I have to shrink my avatars to the 60x60, they lose quality. This is definitely something worth considering.

Takara
04-15-2008, 02:20 PM
Now, I'm most likely not the most computer savvy person out there, so I'd have to look with a staff member that knows this more than me before giving a definite "yes" or "no". The avatar limitation may not be entirely EoFF's staff decision, but it could be a limitation that is coded in this version of vBulletin.

I do agree bigger avatars would be better, aesthetically speaking. I'll try to investigate the matter a bit to see if it would actually be doable.

Flying Mullet
04-15-2008, 03:12 PM
Call me old-fashioned, but I like the smaller avatars. Avatars are an accessory to your posts and not the main focus. If we have larger avatars everyone will have to make longer posts to compensate for this ratio and that's just too much reading for everyone to do.

qwertysaur
04-15-2008, 04:13 PM
The smaller avatars make this forum special, and the big avatars are reserved for staff pranks. Thank you for you feedback though.:p

Bahamut2000X
04-15-2008, 05:27 PM
Small avatars aren't that bad, you just need to know how to size properly. Larger avatars are just too bulky and messy looking. It's not the size that matters it's how you use it.

Heath
04-15-2008, 05:44 PM
I think even with 100x100 avatars people would eventually want larger ones. I personally think 100x100 is a bit bulky for the forums anyway regardless of the size of the postbit. Fine for LJ but not so much for forum browsing. It's worth considering but I don't see much of a problem with the current size of the avatars at the moment in all honesty but I'm not opposed to it.

rubah
04-15-2008, 06:21 PM
Takara, it's perfectly possible to change the limits. A certain admin did for a joke not too long ago >:{

Mullet, if avatars are accessories, then signatures are moreso. We should make them 550x60 so they aren't taking up more vertical height than the posts of most users.

100x100 isn't that bulky. It's about 20 pixels narrower than your custom title, heath, and about 30 narrower than your location field.

Yes small avatars are bad, and no it's not just how to size them. When everyone used 800x600 resolutions, avatars were .75% of the screen area. With my resolution (smaller than several eoffers), a 60x60 avatar is .27% of the screen area. Changing them to 100x100 would put them at .77% of the screen size on a 1440x900 screen, which will only stand to go down over time.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that when eoff was created I was still using 640x400, making 60x60 avatars 1.4% of the screen area. (Not that I visisted eoff then, but if I had and if we'd had 60x60 avatars!)

I hope you all come to your senses.

Flying Mullet
04-15-2008, 06:35 PM
Mullet, if avatars are accessories, then signatures are moreso. We should make them 550x60 so they aren't taking up more vertical height than the posts of most users.
Fine by me, honestly. xD

Heath
04-15-2008, 06:40 PM
100x100 isn't that bulky. It's about 20 pixels narrower than your custom title, heath, and about 30 narrower than your location field.

Yes small avatars are bad, and no it's not just how to size them. When everyone used 800x600 resolutions, avatars were .75% of the screen area. With my resolution (smaller than several eoffers), a 60x60 avatar is .27% of the screen area. Changing them to 100x100 would put them at .77% of the screen size on a 1440x900 screen, which will only stand to go down over time.

I don't have much of a problem with it in all honesty. I don't see much of a problem with the current size. If 100x100 avatars were brought in I'd probably use one myself (I have some nice LJ icons I wouldn't mind using), but as it is, I don't mind 60x60 and don't think there's a real need to change them.

oddler
04-16-2008, 09:10 AM
One thing about having larger available sizes for avatars is the amount of variability between each member's avatar. If it was changed, some would want to keep their 60x60 or smaller image while others would have them ranging from 60-100x60-100. I'd think it would make the forums look less uniform.

Another thing is this: for the members using the EoFF 2.0 skin, increasing the height limit of avatars would create more empty space between the postbit information and the actual post content. Still a uniformity thing.

If it weren't for those two things, I'd agree with you. :greenie:

Heath
04-16-2008, 11:18 AM
One thing about having larger available sizes for avatars is the amount of variability between each member's avatar. If it was changed, some would want to keep their 60x60 or smaller image while others would have them ranging from 60-100x60-100. I'd think it would make the forums look less uniform.

People have a variation as it is though. Mine, for instance, isn't close to 60x60 at all. And as rubah pointed out, the postbit wouldn't change because some people have along locations/ranks as it is (such as myself). I imagine people would naturally drift towards 100x100 though in the same way that most people naturally drifted towards 60x60.

oddler
04-16-2008, 11:30 AM
People have a variation as it is though. Mine, for instance, isn't close to 60x60 at all. And as rubah pointed out, the postbit wouldn't change because some people have along locations/ranks as it is (such as myself). I imagine people would naturally drift towards 100x100 though in the same way that most people naturally drifted towards 60x60.

I agree that there is already variation; I also don't have the full 60x60 pixels filled. Increasing the height and width limits would increase the variation, though. As for your other point, the postbit would change for members with postbit locations set to above post.

theundeadhero
04-16-2008, 12:26 PM
Ut-oh. Staff aren't supposed to argue in public. They're supposed to generally agree and then scream and yell in the staff forum behind closed doors.

Flying Mullet
04-16-2008, 01:33 PM
Well we don't have a staff forum where we can smack each other with whiffle ball bats. :smash:

Heath
04-16-2008, 04:20 PM
People have a variation as it is though. Mine, for instance, isn't close to 60x60 at all. And as rubah pointed out, the postbit wouldn't change because some people have along locations/ranks as it is (such as myself). I imagine people would naturally drift towards 100x100 though in the same way that most people naturally drifted towards 60x60.

I agree that there is already variation; I also don't have the full 60x60 pixels filled. Increasing the height and width limits would increase the variation, though. As for your other point, the postbit would change for members with postbit locations set to above post.

Ah. I must admit that I forgot about that. I'm still using the old style of having the postbit set to the side of the posts. Having said that, I mainly brought that point in there for it to be considered.

Also, it wasn't arguing. It was constructive debate :D

rubah
04-16-2008, 04:44 PM
What's wrong with having a lot of variation anyways? What are you some sort of communist or nazi or something?

Maybe we should just get rid of above the post postbit because they're so much more inferior than the true postbit location.

oddler
04-16-2008, 09:49 PM
Also, it wasn't arguing. It was constructive debate :D

Heath knows the score. :)


What's wrong with having a lot of variation anyways? What are you some sort of communist or nazi or something?

Maybe we should just get rid of above the post postbit because they're so much more inferior than the true postbit location.

Variation, historically, has been the reason against having it changed. This isn't the first time this has been proposed and I actually feel we're the closest now to having it changed more than ever.

You're right, Rubah Lapah, it seems that having postbit locations set to above post is the minority. I don't see why, though. It looks tacky. :p

Give us some time to mull this over. If you have any more ideas, keep them coming. :choc2:

Takara
04-16-2008, 10:14 PM
I think the majority of people prefer to have the postbit location to the side of the post rather than on top because it makes it easier to see where a new post begin. Having it on top can be confusing if you're scrolling quickly because the info risks getting lost in the text.

Levian
04-19-2008, 05:23 AM
I don't really care what size they are as long as we make some kind of law where it's illegal to carry an avatar depicturing a character of different gender from the member carrying it.

No, I don't want to enter your profile and check your gender field.

Ouch!
04-19-2008, 05:29 AM
I don't really care what size they are as long as we make some kind of law where it's illegal to carry an avatar depicturing a character of different gender from the member carrying it.

No, I don't want to enter your profile and check your gender field.
I support this proposal in full!