[REVOTE!] Increase Maximum Avatar Size Poll

[SmallFry]

Keymaster, pre-R00tworm polls were allowed. Ripster and Microsoft Windows mainly used them for trolling, so they were done away with. Google Docs was the supplement that seemed most viable as most people either have a Google account or know how to fill in a form.  

[jdcarpe]

I think we should have unlimited size avatars. Or 320x320.

But implement an option in "Look and Layout" to limit avatar size to Unlimited, 150, 100, 64, or off.

[esoomenona]

I think we should have unlimited size avatars. Or 320x320.

But implement an option in "Look and Layout" to limit avatar size to Unlimited, 150, 100, 64, or off.

I don't think that's a good idea. To do that, you would have to keep a fullsized avatar for everyone, and have it resized through code. This would mean there would need to be ~30 or so fullsize images to load per page, along with images or videos on the page. I think maybe a max size, like 184, then your option to limit size via the users' settings is a good middle ground.

[bavman]

I think it should be left at 100x100. Any higher will make mobile browsing harder. But maybe allow them to be expanded to original size, or at least a larger size from the person's profile page

[baldgye]

I think it should be left at 100x100. Any higher will make mobile browsing harder. But maybe allow them to be expanded to original size, or at least a larger size from the person's profile page

agreed, though I don't see any benefit to making avatars bigger...

[samwisekoi]

I find them distracting, especially when I view this forum on my tablet, so I reduced the size of my avatar.

Is there an option to vote for "smaller, please"?

 - Ron | samwisekoi

[keymaster]

I find them distracting, especially when I view this forum on my tablet, so I reduced the size of my avatar.

Is there an option to vote for "smaller, please"?

 - Ron | samwisekoi

Show Image

You guys should be making these type of polls anyway to avoid bias.

"hurr if you don't want a giant avatar you must be using an old CRT durr"

[tp4tissue]

I find them distracting, especially when I view this forum on my tablet, so I reduced the size of my avatar.

Is there an option to vote for "smaller, please"?

 - Ron | samwisekoi

Show Image

You guys should be making these type of polls anyway to avoid bias.

"hurr if you don't want a giant avatar you must be using an old CRT durr"

if it weren't for the fact that CRTs might actually burn out retinas, I'd still be using one...

FW900..

[Glissant]

The benefit of making avatars bigger, at least for me is to show off the art that my lovely wife makes for me. I also like to see people's creative and fun avatars.

[BunnyLake]

The benefit of making avatars bigger, at least for me is to show off the art that my lovely wife makes for me. I also like to see people's creative and fun avatars.

same as above

[moonprismpwr]

The benefit of making avatars bigger, at least for me is to show off the art that my lovely wife makes for me. I also like to see people's creative and fun avatars.

<3 <3 !

[Soarer]

Consider it a challenge then, to express yourself in 10,000 pixels or less - tp4 manages

BunnyLake's av works great apart from the (IMO pointless) fancy script username - would even 184x184 be enough to see that clearly?~!

Being able to add a decent res pic to our profiles would be good, since that's where you get to if you click on an avatar. Or even something fancier - I wonder if it would be easy to add a post there, then you could add all kinds of stuff with the normal post editing features.

[The_Ed]

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.

[foxer]

Hell yeah! Make dat sh1t bigger man. More people need to see my little orangutan. <3

[Leslieann]

As someone who runs several forums like this, and has had to do the customizing of themes and such for them, I can tell you, this is a bad idea that can lead to a lot of small problems.

First, you cannot leave the size up to the user... not without a lot of programming.

Second, changing the avatar, shifts the entire table. While that sounds minimal, it can push over all sorts of things and cause wrapping in places you don't expect. The whole left column is dictated by name size and avatar size, and that collumn aligns the rest of the page.

Once you set that in a theme, you don't mess with it unless you intend to make adjustments to everything else because that 30 second size change, can create 4 hours of work to adjust everything to compensate and on some themes it just never works right even after 8 hours of work. Been there, done that.

[The_Ed]

The post content column is auto-sized... Why would changing the left column mess that up?

[tp4tissue]

I think you guys just need to wait for Internet HD... we're simply not there yet in terms of latency/ bandwidth.

[IvanIvanovich]

I primarily view the forum on 1440p, and I think most peoples avatars look fine. If you feel your avatar looks bad at the current size, you chose a poopy avatar.

[longweight]

Or they could just stay the same size and not take up too much room.

[baldgye]

The benefit of making avatars bigger, at least for me is to show off the art that my lovely wife makes for me. I also like to see people's creative and fun avatars.

Sounds like she needs a blog...

[tsangan]

The benefit of making avatars bigger, at least for me is to show off the art that my lovely wife makes for me. I also like to see people's creative and fun avatars.

I think her art is great too but with that being said

http://www.deviantart.com/

[longweight]

Exactly, this forum is about keyboards not showing off your avatar.

[baldgye]

The benefit of making avatars bigger, at least for me is to show off the art that my lovely wife makes for me. I also like to see people's creative and fun avatars.

I think her art is great too but with that being said

http://www.deviantart.com/

lol'd... really though, why is it over the past few days people have been in sudden demand of massive sigs and avys? Over-sized images tagged to every single post you make only clutter up a forum, make it look a mess and only really serve to obscure the content.

[esoomenona]

When I uploaded my avatar, I tried uploading fullsize, and thought it looked bad, but thought maybe it was because it had to resize such a large picture. So I cropped it myself down to the 100px limit. Here is a comparison: on the left is one I cropped on my own, and on the right is how it looks after being uploaded (zoomed in, of course). You lose a lot of detail.

[longweight]

Looks fine at the forum's avatar size.

[tp4tissue]

When I uploaded my avatar, I tried uploading fullsize, and thought it looked bad, but thought maybe it was because it had to resize such a large picture. So I cropped it myself down to the 100px limit. Here is a comparison: on the left is one I cropped on my own, and on the right is how it looks after being uploaded (zoomed in, of course). You lose a lot of detail.

(Attachment Link)

It depends on what you're going for.. down sampling MUST lose detail..  The first picture has been over-sharpened to "enhance" details at low res, but it is actually NOT the accurate downsample..

however, this is another one of those preference issues.

[Glissant]

She can have her art all over the internet, I would still like to show off what she does.

Yes this is a keyboard related forum, so I guess you shouldn't talk about anything or show anything but keyboard related stuff then, longweight.

Bottom line is I like to see avatars, and I want them to be a little bigger.

[moonprismpwr]

Yes this is a keyboard related forum, so I guess you shouldn't talk about anything or show anything but keyboard related stuff then, longweight.

Let him sit next to negative nancy on the bitter bus xD

If you're going to go on about that then I hope I don't see you posting in anything off-topic or not keyboard related, since you've got a vendetta against it.

[baldgye]

I want them to be a little bigger.

But why, how would that benefit anyone? It's not as though there are barely viewable now is it.

[The_Ed]

They ARE barely visible...

[moonprismpwr]

I want them to be a little bigger.

But why, how would that benefit anyone? It's not as though there are barely viewable now is it.

Someone could also argue the opposite. It's a preference. It would benefit whomever prefers it to be that way.

[baldgye]

They ARE barely visible...

I want them to be a little bigger.

But why, how would that benefit anyone? It's not as though there are barely viewable now is it.

Someone could also argue the opposite. It's a preference. It would benefit whomever prefers it to be that way.

Argue on what basis, I like it therefor I want it?
It would make the forum look and function worse because there would be more dead space being used by essentially meaningless images. You could better argue that peoples usernames should be bigger so its more clear who is posting.

It makes no sense and simply saying but I want it isn't an argument that adults should really be having....

They ARE barely visible...

I think you should see an optician, as I can see your mostly black avatar from the other side of my room when using my laptop.

[esoomenona]

Technically, there is deadspace as it is. Roughly 40px based on Glissant's setup, the space between the end of the avatar and the end of text that is possible to fit under location or personal text. Why shouldn't an avatar at least extend out to that limit?

[Glissant]

baldgye, more pixels = easier to see what's actually in the image. It will also allow for more of an image to show without it being too small.
Define what you mean by the forum functioning worse with a slightly bigger avatar?
Look is subjective.

[baldgye]

Technically, there is deadspace as it is. Roughly 40px based on Glissant's setup, the space between the end of the avatar and the end of text that is possible to fit under location or personal text. Why shouldn't an avatar at least extend out to that limit?

(Attachment Link)

If it dsnt actually impede the size of that column then I have no problem with it, but I'm guessing that space is there for a reason, though I'd still prefer smaller avatars as they have a smaller footprint

[longweight]

She can have her art all over the internet, I would still like to show off what she does.

Yes this is a keyboard related forum, so I guess you shouldn't talk about anything or show anything but keyboard related stuff then, longweight.

Bottom line is I like to see avatars, and I want them to be a little bigger.

Awesome.

[Dubsgalore]

I don't read the username, I associate with the avatar through my peripheral while reading. That's why I hate it when people keep changing their avatars...

Actually this is exactly how I work. Every time an avatar changes, I wonder who dafuq it is. And when everyone starts using the same avatar, I get confused as all hell.

that's how i work too haha

Some people change their avatar way too much, and it takes a few days to learn to associate their new avatar with their username

[baldgye]

baldgye, more pixels = easier to see what's actually in the image. It will also allow for more of an image to show without it being too small.
Define what you mean by the forum functioning worse with a slightly bigger avatar?
Look is subjective.

seenin as we on first name turns now...

Glissant, having simply larger images would yes allow it to be seen by people with very bad vision, though they would then struggle to actually use the rest of the forum... and I guess you should try more forums where they allow massive avys and sigs and they are a MESS... people's posts are usually half the size of either there avy and or sig so most of a forum page is made up of massive images with only 50 words though out the page. It looks a mess and depending on the size of the forum and the servers they use can take time to load.. for basically no real reason.

I guess 'look' is subjective, but functionality really isn't. I'd argue that a site like Teamliquid functions better than say mgsforums. mgsf seemingly allow massive sigs and large avys, there forum is slow and the actual forum pages are a cluttered mess. TL don't allow sigs of anything really other than one line of text and dont allow you to choose an avy its just a tiny image of either a protoss/zerg/terran unit thats from broodwar... and there forum pages load fast and the actual content is what's imporant rather than people's super cool avys and massive sig's...

I'm not saying that TL is some amazing design achievement that all forums should try and mimic, but I do feel that if your avy is actually good enough in its design it should be able to stand up at 100x100 px... if it dsnt, then its a bad avy and simply allowing another 80 or so px's wont really change that in any way.

[peachesenregalia]

I'm okay with any increase that doesn't alter the layout.

[esoomenona]

simply allowing another 80 24,000 or so px's wont really change that in any way.

[jdcarpe]

And again I ask (as I did with the signatures), if you don't like seeing people's avatars, and/or want to limit their size, WHY NOT JUST TURN THEM OFF?!?!

I think some people just like being contrarian.

[longweight]

This just isn't an issue is it?

[baldgye]

And again I ask (as I did with the signatures), if you don't like seeing people's avatars, and/or want to limit their size, WHY NOT JUST TURN THEM OFF?!?!

I think some people just like being contrarian.

But for avatars that's an even dumber solution as people (me included) see attach those avatars to people rather than there random ass name.

[rknize]

Technically, there is deadspace as it is. Roughly 40px based on Glissant's setup, the space between the end of the avatar and the end of text that is possible to fit under location or personal text. Why shouldn't an avatar at least extend out to that limit?

If it dsnt actually impede the size of that column then I have no problem with it, but I'm guessing that space is there for a reason, though I'd still prefer smaller avatars as they have a smaller footprint

There is about 160 pixels of width there.  It will vary a bit by platform and browser, depending on how your browser renders and estimates fonts.  That extra margin is mainly there to reserve space for large user names.  I recently added some code to handle those better and shrank the margin a bit to recover the dead space.  The margin width is not driven in any way by the size of the avatar, so that argument is moot.  If we suddenly allowed 184x184 pixel avatars, they would be chopped-off by the current margin.

While avatars are fun, they should not take away from the real content of the forum: the posts.  I don't think we'd ever want avatars to bump right up to the post content.  It will just make it harder to read.

When I uploaded my avatar, I tried uploading fullsize, and thought it looked bad, but thought maybe it was because it had to resize such a large picture. So I cropped it myself down to the 100px limit. Here is a comparison: on the left is one I cropped on my own, and on the right is how it looks after being uploaded (zoomed in, of course). You lose a lot of detail.

This is a separate problem...a bug in SMF.  The avatar handling code is a bit of a mess, especially where GIFs are concerned.  I have some fixes pending to address that and prevent avatars that meet the limits from being re-encoded.  They had their reasons for doing this, but I don't think it's worth it.

[baldgye]

Technically, there is deadspace as it is. Roughly 40px based on Glissant's setup, the space between the end of the avatar and the end of text that is possible to fit under location or personal text. Why shouldn't an avatar at least extend out to that limit?

If it dsnt actually impede the size of that column then I have no problem with it, but I'm guessing that space is there for a reason, though I'd still prefer smaller avatars as they have a smaller footprint

There is about 160 pixels of width there.  It will vary a bit by platform and browser, depending on how your browser renders and estimates fonts.  That extra margin is mainly there to reserve space for large user names.  I recently added some code to handle those better and shrank the margin a bit to recover the dead space.  The margin width is not driven in any way by the size of the avatar, so that argument is moot.  If we suddenly allowed 184x184 pixel avatars, they would be chopped-off by the current margin.

While avatars are fun, they should not take away from the real content of the forum: the posts.  I don't think we'd ever want avatars to bump right up to the post content.  It will just make it harder to read.

Fair enough, I guessed there would be a reason for that space but as I can't code for **** (and had nothing to do with making this forum) so I was just guessing

[esoomenona]

When I uploaded my avatar, I tried uploading fullsize, and thought it looked bad, but thought maybe it was because it had to resize such a large picture. So I cropped it myself down to the 100px limit. Here is a comparison: on the left is one I cropped on my own, and on the right is how it looks after being uploaded (zoomed in, of course). You lose a lot of detail.

This is a separate problem...a bug in SMF.  The avatar handling code is a bit of a mess, especially where GIFs are concerned.  I have some fixes pending to address that and prevent avatars that meet the limits from being re-encoded.  They had their reasons for doing this, but I don't think it's worth it.

Thank you, sir! That would be great.

[Glissant]

To the not bald fellow that has bald in his name:

What was that first comment about? I guess I'll not use your handle when talking to you.

I am and have been a member of all kinds of forums that have all kinds of avatar sizes. I still prefer a little bigger than smaller ones. I don't find it bothersome if people post short posts. Load will not be massive increased by some avatars being 150x150 instead of 100x100.

This is geekhack, and again I am sure the server would not slow down because of this change.
The clutter aspect is yet again a very subjective aspect. And you are free to disable avatars at any time. There's an option for that.




rknize, so you're saying there is no real reason in continuing to defend my personal view? .

[jdcarpe]

There is about 160 pixels of width there.  It will vary a bit by platform and browser, depending on how your browser renders and estimates fonts.  That extra margin is mainly there to reserve space for large user names.  I recently added some code to handle those better and shrank the margin a bit to recover the dead space.  The margin width is not driven in any way by the size of the avatar, so that argument is moot.  If we suddenly allowed 184x184 pixel avatars, they would be chopped-off by the current margin.

While avatars are fun, they should not take away from the real content of the forum: the posts.  I don't think we'd ever want avatars to bump right up to the post content.  It will just make it harder to read.

So we could have 150x150px, and still have about 10px of padding there?

[baldgye]

The clutter aspect is yet again a very subjective aspect. And you are free to disable avatars at any time. There's an option for that.

So, in a forum you controlled, avatars would either be big (150x150+) or totally disabled ?

[Glissant]

Are you trying to be ignorant or does it just come naturally?
I said there is an option to disable avatars if you want. In an ideal world I would like to have two choices. everything up to 150x150 and disabled.