Bigger Avatars

[Darlene159]

Originally Posted by Sam

I have to agree on this. A limit is needful. It's already sometimes annoying when you open a thread with lots of big images or a big (and sometimes also bugging gif).
I think a commensurate solution would be size limit 100x100 px and a data size of 40 KB (animated) would be ok.

I also dont think crazy flashy stuff should be allowed either. Not only is it annoying to see that while trying to read a post, it could be harmful for someone who has epilepsy...other than that, I wouldn't mind animation, but I guess that isn't really what this thread is about.

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

I also dont think crazy flashy stuff should be allowed either. Not only is it annoying to see that while trying to read a post, it could be harmful for someone who has epilepsy...

Nobody has "crazy flashy" signatures, so I can't imagine this being a problem.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

I also dont think crazy flashy stuff should be allowed either. Not only is it annoying to see that while trying to read a post, it could be harmful for someone who has epilepsy.

Users can choose in their User CP whether or not they want signatures, and avatars displayed in postbit.

[Demisis_P2P]

Originally Posted by Sam

I have to agree on this. A limit is needful. It's already sometimes annoying when you open a thread with lots of big images or a big (and sometimes also bugging gif).
I think a commensurate solution would be size limit 100x100 px and a data size of 40 KB (animated) would be ok.

CABAL's simple eye glowing avatar is 11 frames. That's 11 100x100 images in a single .gif container.
If you make the file size limit too small then people will only be able to have one or two frames, at which point flashy avatars are harder to avoid.

If the issue here is distracting avatars and not the download time of images with more frames, then just make a rule against avatars that flash bright colors.
If the actual data/speed is the issue (I'm sure 95% of the people here use broadband/cable internet anyway) then people can use browser plugins like Adblock to block the avatar images.

[Loriel]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

I also dont think crazy flashy stuff should be allowed either. Not only is it annoying to see that while trying to read a post, it could be harmful for someone who has epilepsy...other than that, I wouldn't mind animation, but I guess that isn't really what this thread is about.

If you happen to use a reasonably recent version of firefox, you can go to about:config and search for the image.animation_mode key and set it to none and then no images will be flashy and crazy anymore.

[Loriel]

Originally Posted by CABAL49

The might of CABAL will crush you. Since he is what I named my account after, I'd advise you to keep your *****-mouth shut.

Maybe you could change your avatar to this and it would be like a dozen times cooler

[WhiteDragon]

Originally Posted by Loriel

Maybe you could change your avatar to this and it would be like a dozen times cooler

:hi5:

[Imperialistic]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

I also dont think crazy flashy stuff should be allowed either. Not only is it annoying to see that while trying to read a post, it could be harmful for someone who has epilepsy.

Most **** shouldn't be ruled out just because one little person that has a great amount of power on a forum doesn't like it, their should be votes for situations like this.

But you know, not sure if Forum Staff would go for that, because it IS equality.. and that is sure frowned upon around these threads.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Imperialistic

Most **** shouldn't be ruled out just because one little person that has a great amount of power on a forum doesn't like it, their should be votes for situations like this.

But you know, not sure if Forum Staff would go for that, because it IS equality.. and that is sure frowned upon around these threads.

A disrespectful attack against the forums staff member is not helpful in this or any other case.
I cannot judge about other forums, but I doubt they are more democratic as the graal forums.
Darlene utters her opinion about things as any other does. In the case of bigger avatars she do not decide if or if not. So complain not about her opinion in this way. IF there will be a decision about avatars, it will be made by Stefan.

[DustyPorViva]

Usually forums are not very democratic because it takes a lot of bad decisions to actually ruin forums. Regardless, many forums usually do not go against the majority of the community when they do make a decision if it makes sense(AKA, if they shrink the size of avatars and the community doesn't like it, chances are they will reverse it. However, if they add a rule saying no discussion of wares and the community disagrees, they will probably keep it regardless).

[Deophite18]

While I agree with this thread I seriously doubt Stefan will do anything. He always just reads them and never posts to avoid trying to justify reasons for not increasing size limits or adding animations. God forbid we give the people who pay what they want.

I also think 100kb sig limit is absurd. Should be 1 MB Maximum. I don't have a problem with the 550x300 though.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by Deophite18

I also think 100kb sig limit is absurd. Should be 1 MB Maximum. I don't have a problem with the 550x300 though.

1mb is huge, even for broadbands. 300kb, max(if you're on dial-up, be smart and have avatars disabled anyways. I certainly did when I was on dial-up, even with these limits... it just makes browsing faster).

[Deophite18]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

1mb is huge, even for broadbands. 300kb, max(if you're on dial-up, be smart and have avatars disabled anyways. I certainly did when I was on dial-up, even with these limits... it just makes browsing faster).

Psh, I am prob using one of the worst computers of anyone on graal or ogcc. I browse other forums daily where people have imbeded videos as sigs, flash sigs, 1000x500 sigs. And I never have any problems loading any threads even with my crappy 7 year old 256 MB RAM computer on crappy wireless internet.

OGCC has like the strictest avatar and sig limitations iv seen on the on any forum.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by Deophite18

Psh, I am prob using one of the worst computers of anyone on graal or ogcc. I browse other forums daily where people have imbeded videos as sigs, flash sigs, 1000x500 sigs. And I never have any problems loading any threads even with my crappy 7 year old 256 MB RAM computer on crappy wireless internet.

OGCC has like the strictest avatar and sig limitations iv seen on the on any forum.

Computer speed != connection speed.

[Chompy]

Originally Posted by Deophite18

Psh, I am prob using one of the worst computers of anyone on graal or ogcc. I browse other forums daily where people have imbeded videos as sigs, flash sigs, 1000x500 sigs. And I never have any problems loading any threads even with my crappy 7 year old 256 MB RAM computer on crappy wireless internet.

OGCC has like the strictest avatar and sig limitations iv seen on the on any forum.

Loading(/downloading) avatars has nothing to do with your graphic card, but more with the speed of your connection that your ISP provide.

If you normally have a download speed at 50 kb/s, it will take you 20 seconds to(down) load an avatar with the size 1mb.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Chompy

If you normally have a download speed at 50 kb/s, it will take you 20 seconds to(down) load an avatar with the size 1mb.

10 posts on a site with a 1mb sized avatar and a 1 mb sized signature = how many seconds to load the site?
With all due respect it's 45 seconds too much.

I just noticed something that's strange:
CheeTos2 avatar is bigger in the CP friends list. Also even if the limit for avatars is 65x65, some of them are scaled to 70 px.

[Crow]

Originally Posted by Sam

Also even if the limit for avatars is 65x65

It's not.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Crow

It's not.

Obviously not, I refer to what it says on the upload site...

[Crow]

And here we have it. Super Mods are officially more restricted than the average user.

[Loriel]

Clearly the solution is to let everybody use whatever size avatars they want, and then also give everybody a setting to hide avatars exceeding x*y pixels, z bytes.

[Hiro]

Originally Posted by Loriel

Clearly the solution is to let everybody use whatever size avatars they want, and then also give everybody a setting to hide avatars exceeding x*y pixels, z bytes.

wasn't that also the similar solution to the NGRT private lounge?

[Inverness]

Bump.

It's time to renew the fight.

So I wonder how much the average speed of the Internet user has increased since then, need larger avatars to compensate, 100x100 pixels like suggested in the OP.

[Luda]

Yup, 100x100 please

[Clockwork]

100 x 100 seems a nice update

[Skyld]

Originally Posted by Inverness

Bump.

It's time to renew the fight.

So I wonder how much the average speed of the Internet user has increased since then, need larger avatars to compensate, 100x100 pixels like suggested in the OP.

It's only an avatar, who cares whether it's 64x64 or 100x100 :|

[adam]

I don't think it's bad as it is now. But I don't see a problem with making it a little bigger for some ppl either.

[fowlplay4]

Originally Posted by Skyld

It's only an avatar, who cares whether it's 64x64 or 100x100 :|

The people who want their extra 5904 pixels, so they can show how hip or anime they are.

[Inverness]

Originally Posted by Skyld

It's only an avatar, who cares whether it's 64x64 or 100x100 :|

A lot of people apparently.

[Demisis_P2P]

the user info panel to the side of each post is a set size anyway. IIRC avatars could be 296 pixels wide without distorting the page at all.

[DustyPorViva]

I support this, of course. Being someone who has very ****ty internet, and went a long time with dial-up, I'd still suggest this.

Also, you can still set size limits to prevent huge animated avatars.

I close with the statement that signatures can allow any content, from a flashing sig to a 5mb animation. This is not a problem.

[kia345]

Originally Posted by Skyld

It's only an avatar, who cares whether it's 64x64 or 100x100 :|

I don't care. Like with animated avatars, I care the management ignores or refuses to answer pleas made by paying costumers for things even as small and simple as this.

[Crono]

dunno why they wont do it, but they just wont

its one of those simple small things that will make the majority of the community happy but knowing how things are always done here im not surprised

[Inverness]

Originally Posted by Crono

its one of those simple small things that will make the majority of the community happy but knowing how things are always done here im not surprised

This is correct. The effect of simple things like this on the community is often (always) overlooked.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Inverness

This is correct. The effect of simple things like this on the community is often (always) overlooked.

when isn't this community overlooked? im still grateful they let classic members post on this forum (to be fair this forum was practically dead at that time) but that was the last thing they did for the community as a whole afaik (props houdini).

[LoneAngelIbesu]

Originally Posted by Inverness

This is correct. The effect of simple things like this on the community is often (always) overlooked.

I agree that avatars could be bumped up in size. But don't pretend like doing that would be some kind of panacea.

[Inverness]

Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu

I agree that avatars could be bumped up in size. But don't pretend like doing that would be some kind of panacea.

I don't.

[kia345]

Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu

I agree that avatars could be bumped up in size. But don't pretend like doing that would be some kind of panacea.

It would be a step in the right direction