Avatar size

[SmallFry]

Baldgye, I did read most of it. It seemed like banter back and forth with no clear answer to my question.

[E TwentyNine]

Baldgye, I did read most of it. It seemed like banter back and forth with no clear answer to my question.

Hypothetical extreme question: If the margin were not a factor, why not make the limit 500px?

Basically it boils down to wasting screen real estate to something that doesn't necessarily add value.

The counter argument to that is "you can turn off avatars".  That's true, but I like them, to a degree.  (Not including Ed's. I've seen higher fidelity graphics on a Vic 20. )

Either way I personally can customize my interface however I want with a combination of adblock and stylish.  I'm just having fun with the delicacies of number manipulation.

[E TwentyNine]

Fair enough, I guess reading though the thread would be way too much hassle

This isn't nearly up to the standards of this board when it comes to the degree of severity when pointing out to someone that they missed a detail in the thread.

[baldgye]

Baldgye, I did read most of it. It seemed like banter back and forth with no clear answer to my question.

From both threads that where made of this here are the arguments made for and against the change that I saw;

For
-more creativity
-people want it

against
-effort (implementing)
-reduces the content area
-adds no value and only adds more 'clutter'

Fair enough, I guess reading though the thread would be way too much hassle

This isn't nearly up to the standards of this board when it comes to the degree of severity when pointing out to someone that they missed a detail in the thread.

How so?
This dumb thread has gotten to 12 pages now and the previous thread was up to 5-6? I argued against the widening or the side bar to only ever get abuse in return because I didn't value the argument that 'but I want it'... then someone asks (again) well why don't you guys want it, as if these threads are brand new and those arguments never took place.

And I didn't know you where a mod.

[Soarer]

It is logical. So is a weighted average, which (ignoring debate about how it should be calculated) comes out to something in that ballpark (in any case, closer to 120 than 150). With enough votes, wouldn't they be equal?

Because we're dealing with discrete values here, while I think the weighted average would approach the same value as my method, doubtful it would ever be equal.

Interesting that two different approaches come to nearly the same result though.

It is indeed!

There's another logical reason for 120 pixels - it's just about perfect for a pixel art 122-key model F, or a Corsair Vengeance K90. Maybe Ed can find a wider keyboard...

Alrighty, let me change my question. Soarer and The_Ed, what is wrong with leaving the limit higher (margin permitting, so 150px) if people still can use 100px, or 50px avatars?

Ignoring the 'margin permitting' part... because those 150 avatars take more vertical space as well. And let's face it, a lot of people will end up with them out of laziness, since most are downscaled from something larger.

Not ignoring the 'margin permitting' part... the simple fact is that 150px avatars required the margin to increase.

It's irrelevant that margins were 'wrong' at some point, then fixed by reducing them, then enlarged for 150px avatars, with the current width being about the same as the 'wrong' size. It's still larger than the 'fixed' size.

[E TwentyNine]

Fair enough, I guess reading though the thread would be way too much hassle

This isn't nearly up to the standards of this board when it comes to the degree of severity when pointing out to someone that they missed a detail in the thread.

How so?
This dumb thread has gotten to 12 pages now and the previous thread was up to 5-6? I argued against the widening or the side bar to only ever get abuse in return because I didn't value the argument that 'but I want it'... then someone asks (again) well why don't you guys want it, as if these threads are brand new and those arguments never took place.

And I didn't know you where a mod.

It was a joke.  I'm saying you weren't being nearly enough of an ******* like it seems too many people on this board are when telling someone they missed something.

[baldgye]

It was a joke.  I'm saying you weren't being nearly enough of an ******* like it seems too many people on this board are when telling someone they missed something.

LOL my bad bro <3 Being an ******* is something I take very seriously and I work hard every day to try and be the biggest ******* I can possibly be, but sometimes I mess up and **** it up.
I'll work hard in the future to try and make sure these **** ups and misunderstandings don't happen in the future.

xx

[The_Ed]

My vote is for 184, and I am against anything larger unless there is an option in the profile to scale them down.

[aggiejy]

It's not just about space. All this margin talk is pointless.

To me, it's about distracting and gaudy design. I like Deskthority's 64px limit. 

Good thing I'm not dictator. :-)

---

Also, I was against the 184px originally and voted for 150px. But then we changed it to 150 temporarily and I realized how much I hate it. I changed my vote. I imagine it brought other folks here too. Anyway, it's a vote I guess. But I'll be using a user style to resize all your avatars down regardless. (And for bonus, I'll set a list of avatars to hide completely.) I'll share if anyone wants it once I'm done. :-)

[jdcarpe]

The simple fact is that the margin width makes little difference. What we are talking about here, in effect, is a 50px vertical difference. People can currently have signatures that are double that vertical space, at 120px high. So for a slight increase in vertical space (and that only for users that choose to use the increase), you get double the pixels available.

If you don't like seeing other people's avatars, turn them off. If you don't want to add to the vertical increase, make your own avatar smaller.

All this arguing over how votes should be counted is childish.

[aggiejy]

I don't mind taller avatars either. A 3:4 or even 9:16 ratio avatar that's 100px wide looks good. Regardless, such things are subjective just like signatures.

The "then turn them off" argument is too harsh as they obviously both are useful. Thus, a personalized user style through a browser plugin unless/until such things are added ton the forum.

[Soarer]

It's not just about space. All this margin talk is pointless.

To me, it's about distracting and gaudy design. I like Deskthority's 64px limit. 

Good thing I'm not dictator. :-)

Bigger thing that isn't post == bigger distraction, as far as I'm concerned. The two arguments are linked.

Taste, however, cannot be argued into anyone.

[Soarer]

I don't mind taller avatars either. A 3:4 or even 9:16 ratio avatar that's 100px wide looks good. Regardless, such things are subjective just like signatures.

The "then turn them off" argument is too harsh as they obviously both are useful. Thus, a personalized user style through a browser plugin unless/until such things are added on the forum.

Well I'd certainly welcome being able to turn of post counts, personal texts, custom titles, messaging icons, etc. to reduce the clutter!

[baldgye]

I do feel that the forum does look worse from a design perspective with the avatars as large as they are atm

[Soarer]

The simple fact is that the margin width makes little difference. What we are talking about here, in effect, is a 50px vertical difference. People can currently have signatures that are double that vertical space, at 120px high. So for a slight increase in vertical space (and that only for users that choose to use the increase), you get double the pixels available.

That's a terrible argument, since anyone with any taste turned signatures off long ago.

</facetious>

... since most sigs are not pushing the limits, or anything close.

[E TwentyNine]

I don't mind taller avatars either. A 3:4 or even 9:16 ratio avatar that's 100px wide looks good. Regardless, such things are subjective just like signatures.

The "then turn them off" argument is too harsh as they obviously both are useful. Thus, a personalized user style through a browser plugin unless/until such things are added on the forum.

Well I'd certainly welcome being able to turn of post counts, personal texts, custom titles, messaging icons, etc. to reduce the clutter!

Not sure if you saw my post regarding Stylish

You could customize the user style (see http://userstyles.org/) a bit to get exactly what you want.

[E TwentyNine]

The simple fact is that the margin width makes little difference. What we are talking about here, in effect, is a 50px vertical difference. People can currently have signatures that are double that vertical space, at 120px high. So for a slight increase in vertical space (and that only for users that choose to use the increase), you get double the pixels available.

That's a terrible argument, since anyone with any taste turned signatures off long ago.

I resemble that remark!   Truth is, very few people have signatures, and almost nobody has graphics in them (those I adblock anyway).

Think a board option where sigs are collapsed with one button to expand them (without the sig creator having to use the "more" tag) would be useful.

[Soarer]

I don't mind taller avatars either. A 3:4 or even 9:16 ratio avatar that's 100px wide looks good. Regardless, such things are subjective just like signatures.

The "then turn them off" argument is too harsh as they obviously both are useful. Thus, a personalized user style through a browser plugin unless/until such things are added on the forum.

Well I'd certainly welcome being able to turn of post counts, personal texts, custom titles, messaging icons, etc. to reduce the clutter!

Not sure if you saw my post regarding Stylish

You could customize the user style (see http://userstyles.org/) a bit to get exactly what you want.

Sure, if it comes to it I'd love something like that! Far better to have it done in the forum code though.

[baldgye]

are the sig high limits really 120?!

[aggiejy]

Not sure if you saw my post regarding Stylish

You could customize the user style (see http://userstyles.org/) a bit to get exactly what you want.

Sure, if it comes to it I'd love something like that! Far better to have it done in the forum code though.

Yeah, the drawback with userstyles is sometimes you get a momentary flash when the page loads.

[aggiejy]

Ahhh... much better.

[SmallFry]

How did you do that, via Stylish?

[aggiejy]

How did you do that, via Stylish?

Yep! Here's what I used: http://j.youens.com/P4wu  Just a quick (and small) adjustment, but seems to work great in Chrome.

[aggiejy]

Having too much fun messing with things.  Personally a fan of fixed width and grey.  (<3 Deskthority design!) 

Here's a *quick* take after messing with CSS for a bit.  Boring header though.




But yeah, sadly there's a quick flash when the page loads. 

[ikoma]

Can we get GIF avatars?

[rowdy]

Already have!

[ikoma]

Oh wow, could have sworn I tried uploading a gif, heh.

[rowdy]

There are overall size and number of frame limitations I saw somewhere.

I tried mine, and it worked

[The_Ed]

There are resizing issues if I remember correctly. If you resize it yourself to 150x150 pixels, and then upload it, it *shouldn't* break the animation.

[rknize]

Profile -> Look and Layout ->



It uses JS so that the aspect ratio is maintained when constraining both width and height (to avoid abusers).  You might see a glitch on page reloads, but normal page loads should be fine.

[SmallFry]

Very cool, thank you Rknize.
I've set my avatar back to 100px.

[VesperSAINT]

Pretty cool that you can give us the choice. No 184x184 option?

[rknize]

184x184 causes other problems with the template layout.  It could be fixed, but frankly I don't want to burn any more time on new avatar features.  I still have to fix the GIF upload bug and want to do some other stuff.

[The_Ed]

The ability to choose will make more people happy. 150 looks a lot better than 100, and that's a compromise I was willing to make to get an increase at all. If 184 isn't in the cards, then so be it. Thanks for all the work Rknize.

[VesperSAINT]

184x184 causes other problems with the template layout.  It could be fixed, but frankly I don't want to burn any more time on new avatar features.  I still have to fix the GIF upload bug and want to do some other stuff.

I see~ Thank you for the answer and spending some time to give us the choice

[The_Ed]

Unless there is objection I will close this thread tomorrow.

[Soarer]

I object! Why the obsession with closing threads these days!

Thanks rknize, that's working nicely

Any chance of options to disable custom texts and/or locations?

[baldgye]

Profile -> Look and Layout ->

Show Image

It uses JS so that the aspect ratio is maintained when constraining both width and height (to avoid abusers).  You might see a glitch on page reloads, but normal page loads should be fine.

I can't see that option :/

[SpAmRaY]

Profile -> Look and Layout ->

Show Image

It uses JS so that the aspect ratio is maintained when constraining both width and height (to avoid abusers).  You might see a glitch on page reloads, but normal page loads should be fine.

I can't see that option :/

this is what mine looks like if that helps!

[baldgye]

Ah do I need to use a custom theme??

[Glissant]

Just go to the look and layout. It's there in the two themes I checked at least. Default and nostalgia.

[baldgye]

ahhh I got it, was trying to find the 'look and layout' and couldn't see it on the drop down menu, never thought to just click on my profile... cheers!

[rknize]

It should show up in all of them.  They all use the same template for the profile.

Edit: glad you found it.

[The_Ed]

I object! Why the obsession with closing threads these days!

Fine then, it will be left open to lobby for the second thing that people wanted during my polling - A fullsize Avatar and post in a user's profile to tell about oneself. How plausible is this Rknize?

[rknize]

Both are perfectly plausible!  How probable, I dunno.    Maybe start a new thread about user profile enhancements?  I don't see any reason to close the thread.

[Soarer]

Profile page ideas

[The_Ed]

OK, since Soarer has taken up the second part of this in another thread, I will close this one now.