Author Topic: Avatar size (Read 87413 times)

The_Ed · « **on:** Mon, 06 May 2013, 18:33:48 »

Edit by rknize: I'm leaving this poll open indefinitely, so feel free to leave your vote. We can revisit this any time.

Edit by Ed: 150 Pixels is now the current limit thanks to all your votes.

I think the left column is far too small on a standard 1080p monitor. I think the maximum avatar size should be increased. What size does everyone think it should be increased to (if at all)? I personally think it should be increased to 184 pixels (like steam).

For comparison look at my current avatar size and my fullsize 184 pixel avatar below.

I think there are some very valid things that have come out of this poll.

1. An option to CHOOSE the size of avatar you see (if any at all, which is already an option). (With the maximum being 184 pixels to save on server space and loading times)
2. A fullsize Avatar and post in a user's profile to tell about oneself.

esoomenona · « **Reply #1 on:** Mon, 06 May 2013, 18:56:43 »

Yes, bigger size would be great. Also, what is used for compression/resizing? So many artifacts...

SmallFry · « **Reply #2 on:** Mon, 06 May 2013, 18:57:55 »

Doesn't bother me if we change it. I'm not opposed to leaving it either.

The_Ed · « **Reply #3 on:** Mon, 06 May 2013, 19:13:21 »

This is just a discussion at this point, if most people don't mind it being bigger then I think it will be fine to increase the maximum size. Only if there is a good amount of opposition should it stay the same.

SmallFry · « **Reply #4 on:** Mon, 06 May 2013, 19:14:01 »

In that case... I'm TOTALLY against it.

Kidding.

The_Ed · « **Reply #5 on:** Tue, 07 May 2013, 19:22:13 »

Should I start a poll in off-topic (or somewhere else) for what people prefer on this? Or should it just be implemented and we just see if anyone complains? Average screen size has increased dramatically over the years, so I think it's about time we can use larger Avatars on forums. It's kinda ridiculous to keep using the same size avatars on a screen that has 6.75x the pixels... Who else is with me on a 184 pixel maximum?

SmallFry · « **Reply #6 on:** Tue, 07 May 2013, 19:59:01 »

I say we bring polls back, but that's a different topic. Heh.

The_Ed · « **Reply #7 on:** Tue, 07 May 2013, 21:01:17 »

Alright I just went ahead and made a poll in off-topic.

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=43309.0

Looking good so far.

Quote

Yes, increase it to 184 pixels (like steam)   5   71%
Yes, increase it to 175 pixels   0   0%
Yes, increase it to 150 pixels   0   0%
Yes, increase it to 125 pixels   1   14%
NO! Leave it the **** alone you bastard! I use an old ass CRT!   1   14%

tsangan · « **Reply #8 on:** Wed, 08 May 2013, 05:55:49 »

I'm on a 2560 x 1440 and I think it's fine the way it is but go get em' Ed!

whiskerBox · « **Reply #9 on:** Wed, 08 May 2013, 07:24:34 »

Can't we go bigger than 184? I mean really the posts aren't that important. You know you want a giant neon cat staring you down.

baldgye · « **Reply #10 on:** Wed, 08 May 2013, 07:35:21 »

Quote from: tsangan on Wed, 08 May 2013, 05:55:49

I'm on a 2560 x 1440 and I think it's fine the way it is but go get em' Ed!

Agreed, I have a 24" 1920x1200 primary display, but because screen real estate is something I'm aware off I don't simply have my web browser full-screen, so making avy's bigger would only diminish the actual forum content.
I also just don't see the need for bigger avy's... seems like wasted space to me and more load on the server side (bigger images bigger file sizes etc).

E TwentyNine · « **Reply #11 on:** Wed, 08 May 2013, 07:53:06 »

Fine the way it is.

The_Ed · « **Reply #12 on:** Wed, 08 May 2013, 15:45:49 »

I think there are some very valid things that have come out of this poll.

1. An option to CHOOSE the size of avatar you see (if any at all, which is already an option). (With the maximum being 184 pixels to save on server space and loading times)
2. A fullsize Avatar and post in a user's profile to tell about oneself.

rknize · « **Reply #13 on:** Wed, 08 May 2013, 23:10:17 »

Please leave your vote in the poll above the OP.

aggiejy · « **Reply #14 on:** Wed, 08 May 2013, 23:16:33 »

I suppose if there is an option to choose the size, then whatever. Though, personally I don't like big avatars (or signatures for that matter) and think a good first impression is important for new users that won't see settings for such things. So if the size increases, I'd almost prefer it to be opt-in.

Regardless, I voted for 150px to split the difference. I think a poll is great though. Whatever people vote is what it should be, assuming we get enough votes to be representative.

The_Ed · « **Reply #15 on:** Wed, 08 May 2013, 23:22:50 »

The individual option to choose the maximum size would be the best, but the voted majority best maximum size is a second best.

Looks like it might be 150 based on the fact that it fits already. But I still voted 184 because that's what I would like to see. I hope that we have the individual option to choose in the future.

mkawa · « **Reply #16 on:** Wed, 08 May 2013, 23:53:07 »

i very firmly believe in keeping the the size of a user's flavor text and imagery to below the size of their minimum post to keep visual signal to noise ratios steady and positive. in favor of signal.

customization, sure, it's nice, it allows people to make their posts "their own", but too much flavor and the brain is overwhelmed by flavor and unable to pull the content out.

jdcarpe · « **Reply #17 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 00:04:32 »

Quote from: mkawa on Wed, 08 May 2013, 23:53:07

i very firmly believe in keeping the the size of a user's flavor text and imagery to below the size of their minimum post to keep visual signal to noise ratios steady and positive. in favor of signal.

customization, sure, it's nice, it allows people to make their posts "their own", but too much flavor and the brain is overwhelmed by flavor and unable to pull the content out.

I get what you're saying, but I still think you've been eating too much spicy Thai food.

We should at least be able to fill the dead space on the left side where our usernames go with a slightly larger version of our avatar. Mmmkay?

mkawa · « **Reply #18 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 08:47:55 »

WHY WOULD ANYONE NEED MORE THAN 64KB OF AVATAR?!!??!

badcop · « **Reply #19 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 08:58:02 »

Quote from: mkawa on Thu, 09 May 2013, 08:47:55

WHY WOULD ANYONE NEED MORE THAN 64KB OF AVATAR?!!??!

this made me lol

mkawa · « **Reply #20 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 08:58:15 »

i could broker an exchange for more avi and less sig. the hostages, however, would have to spend another 60 days in the embassy. we are treating them humanely. they are very happy.

esoomenona · « **Reply #21 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 09:02:00 »

We could all just go with less of both. It is time to conform.

SpAmRaY · « **Reply #22 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 12:02:48 »

Quote from: esoomenona on Thu, 09 May 2013, 09:02:00

We could all just go with less of both. It is time to conform.

No moose, is not moose without a moose

And I voted for 150x150 since why waste space?

The_Ed · « **Reply #23 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 12:08:18 »

Conform?! THIS IS NEUE GEEKHACK!! You just get muted as a gentle nudge to stay inside the box of shame.

150 is looking very strong, especially considering that votes for 184 also count towards 150 when it comes down to it.

mkawa · « **Reply #24 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 12:09:04 »

Quote from: ray4jc on Thu, 09 May 2013, 12:02:48

Quote from: esoomenona on Thu, 09 May 2013, 09:02:00
We could all just go with less of both. It is time to conform.

No moose, is not moose without a moose

And I voted for 150x150 since why waste space?

empty space (also called negative space) is an object that gives brains a second to take a breath between computations

The_Ed · « **Reply #25 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 12:11:42 »

Space be damned! It *sucks! But negative space *blows me, so it's OK in my book. Wait...

SpAmRaY · « **Reply #26 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 12:16:21 »

Quote from: mkawa on Thu, 09 May 2013, 12:09:04

Quote from: ray4jc on Thu, 09 May 2013, 12:02:48
Quote from: esoomenona on Thu, 09 May 2013, 09:02:00
We could all just go with less of both. It is time to conform.

No moose, is not moose without a moose

And I voted for 150x150 since why waste space?
empty space (also called negative space) is an object that gives brains a second to take a breath between computations

So your saying it won't help me understand all the big words especially with my ADD kicking in most of the time? But I just look at the pictures and skim over the words...

rknize · « **Reply #27 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 13:11:00 »

We'll let the poll run into the weekend. I tested-out 150x150 on the dev site and it seems to work OK with our current templates after the left margin is adjusted slightly. We can deploy this immediately.

184x184 causes other rendering problems (up in the header, for example). 160x160 is the largest we can support without having to fix the other template bugs.

The_Ed · « **Reply #28 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 13:24:34 »

Ohhh... The header would have to grow vertically with an Avatar size increase... Does 184 work if the header stays at 160 or less?

rknize · « **Reply #29 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 13:36:35 »

It causes a bunch of white bars to show up. I could probably fix it by changing the overflow behavior, but it would take some fiddling around and testing in different browsers (as usual with CSS corner cases).

The_Ed · « **Reply #30 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 13:39:48 »

When loading pages on GH I get black bars for half a second before they disappear and everything changes size to fill in the spaces of those black bars.

keymaster · « **Reply #31 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 13:43:33 »

Quote from: mkawa on Thu, 09 May 2013, 08:47:55

WHY WOULD ANYONE NEED MORE THAN 64KB OF AVATAR?!!??!

It seems like some people on this forum really want to express themselves through their avatar. Say hello to 184x184, 200kb+ avatars unless you guys know what's best for the forum as a whole. Personally, I don't care about the avatars themselves being enlarged -- my quarrel is with the fact a few individuals are able to change the look/layout/function of the forum.

That being said, I'd be okay with a 150x150 avatar.

jdcarpe · « **Reply #32 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 13:57:10 »

Quote from: keymaster on Thu, 09 May 2013, 13:43:33

...my quarrel is with the fact a few individuals are able to change the look/layout/function of the forum.

You mean like when our signatures took an arrow to the knee?

keymaster · « **Reply #33 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 14:08:30 »

Quote from: jdcarpe on Thu, 09 May 2013, 13:57:10

Quote from: keymaster on Thu, 09 May 2013, 13:43:33
...my quarrel is with the fact a few individuals are able to change the look/layout/function of the forum.

You mean like when our signatures took an arrow to the knee?

From my understanding, the signature rules had already existed BUT were not enforced until recently.

The_Ed · « **Reply #34 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 14:11:20 »

A few individuals? There was a thread about signatures, and people gave their opinions. They were then acted upon. Signatures are 100x1500+ on most screens, and that is plenty in my book. But I could understand if a poll was made to see what the majority prefers on signatures. Would that make ~~everyone~~ the majority happy?

rknize · « **Reply #35 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 14:11:30 »

We have a poll. You have a vote. Use it and stop complaining. If you want to start a campaign to get more votes, be my guest.

Soarer · « **Reply #36 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 15:34:26 »

rknize man, you should just say 'no' and do something of higher priority! Like take a well-earned rest

(edit: or maybe this feature: http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=39588.msg779923#msg779923)

If this pases, I'll probably just turn the damn things off. Shame really.

It's not just what fits in the horizontal space, it's how much extra it would take vertically - for me most post heights are already determined by the stuff in the left column (with sigs disabled), leaving loads of dead post space.

rknize · « **Reply #37 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 16:06:57 »

I'm looking at that one next.

SmallFry · « **Reply #38 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 18:10:03 »

Not sure if this is the text wrapping or what, but I noticed this earlier. As you can see, the bottom user, watterrbottle's name is smaller than Keymaster's. Just thought I'd ask.

More

The_Ed · « **Reply #39 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 18:14:17 »

Yes, long usernames are shrunk so that they don't break onto 2 lines.

rknize · « **Reply #40 on:** Thu, 09 May 2013, 19:09:13 »

Yup. The font scaling implementation on prod right now is crude. I have a smarter implementation that is undergoing some testing and tuning on various browsers and OS's. I'd like to use something more elegant, but browser support for CSS3 viewports is very poor.

baldgye · « **Reply #41 on:** Fri, 10 May 2013, 05:12:46 »

Quote from: jdcarpe on Thu, 09 May 2013, 13:57:10

Quote from: keymaster on Thu, 09 May 2013, 13:43:33
...my quarrel is with the fact a few individuals are able to change the look/layout/function of the forum.

You mean like when our signatures took an arrow to the knee?

You mean like when people with sig's that broke the rules, had to follow the rules?

jdcarpe · « **Reply #42 on:** Fri, 10 May 2013, 07:09:15 »

Now where was that ignore setting?..

CPTBadAss · « **Reply #43 on:** Fri, 10 May 2013, 07:10:38 »

Forum Profile => Modify Profile => Buddies/Ignore List.

I've been adding a lot of people to it lately...

baldgye · « **Reply #44 on:** Fri, 10 May 2013, 08:17:07 »

One thing I don't understand about people on this forum, instead of even trying to argue your point in a meaningful manner you resort to insults or ignoring people.. preeettyy mature

esoomenona · « **Reply #45 on:** Fri, 10 May 2013, 08:24:05 »

More often than not, it's more mature to walk away from an argument that serves no purpose than to get into one.

We all know those rules were vague and contradicting in places, so it's not correct to say they were being broken.

baldgye · « **Reply #46 on:** Fri, 10 May 2013, 08:39:35 »

There is no argument though lol I didn't even bring up the stuff about sig's... but it as has been the case with the avatar nonsense, you try and get some sort of reasoning other than because I want it or something similar and you just get abuse lol... dsnt seem very logical or mature.

But what ever, I'm not invested in this community and the last week or so has given me literally zero reason to even try and understand it, let alone break into its super dense and strange inner workings.

esoomenona · « **Reply #47 on:** Fri, 10 May 2013, 08:45:46 »

You didn't bring it up, but you did jump on it.

People have given many reasons other than the one you keep focusing on. Why you choose to ignore those is beyond me.

baldgye · « **Reply #48 on:** Fri, 10 May 2013, 08:48:27 »

such as?

esoomenona · « **Reply #49 on:** Fri, 10 May 2013, 08:52:31 »

There are some starting at the very beginning of this thread. Did you even care to read it before you decided to comment?

There is also this entire thread: http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=43309.0

Now whether or not you agree to those reasons does not take away from the fact that they are valid. And if you're going to try to say that they all amount to "I want it", then what does any argument against this change amount to beside "I don't want it"?

News:

Poll

What should the maximum Avatar size be?

Author Topic: Avatar size (Read 87413 times)