Avatars

[Dark Jimbo]

Much appreciated to have the avatars back, Wake - now I can see who everyone is without trying to squint at the names!

However, I can't help but notice that this shiny new forum allows icons that are 100 pixels square. I thought I'd give myself a nice big new one but can't seem to work out how to load a new image to the site. Is there a knack to it, am I being dense or is this just not available yet?

[Wake]

At the moment, avatar images have to be uploaded by me to a gallery, and I've only uploaded 32x32 pixel images. I'm not sure whether to allow an increase in size or not. Part of me feels that the more aspects which stay the same as the old board, the better. The original reason for not allowing large icons was so that it didn't slow down how long a page showing lots of them at one time would take to load. However, that was a decision taken pre-broadband so maybe it doesn't matter so much nowadays.

What does everyone else think?

Actually, looking at the way the avatars appear, perhaps they should be allowed to be wider but not taller.

[Grant Goggans]

That would be very interesting -userpics and avatars are traditionally square... having the option of rectangles is a neat idea!

[Wake]

If anyone would like to try a mini-banner of 128 pixels wide and 32 pixels high, email them to me and I'll upload them to a new avatar gallery.

[pauljholden]

Bigger avatars please!

- pj

[Richmond Clements]

Quick!
Someone make a joke about PJs being actual size!

[IndigoPrime]

Actually, looking at the way the avatars appear, perhaps they should be allowed to be wider but not taller.

That might be OK, but please don't make them taller. They're just a distraction, otherwise, rather than an indicator of the person posting. Also, just because we now have broadband, that's no reason to slow it down. It's shocking how many Flash sites these days take just as long to load as sites did in the 1990s, using the faster connections as an excuse (rather than fine-tuning tech, which would make loads times way faster).

[Proudhuff]

Wake, forgive the luddite in me, I've got a flickr image I would like to use for my Avatar but its 75x75, is there a simple way I can get it as my image?

Thanks

Huff

[ukdane]

The fact that we have a signature, is a bonus.
I'm not bothered one way or the other about the size of the avatars.
It takes some getting used to, but I have to say this new board is growing on me more and more everyday.
I currently miss the avatars on the index page, as I used them as a quick overview of posts.
Now I'm just looking forward to the rest of the site returning.

Edit: The preview/edit (as I nearly always think of something just after posting) is a bonus, and I'm glad the thumbs up/down have gone.

[Stan]

The banner thing could be interesting. Though I think I'd prefer 50x50 as a compromise. That's pretty much the smallest size I've ever seen on a message board.

[Wils]

Personally, I think they're fine as they are. They're descriptive of the poster, they load quickly, aren't distracting at all and puts paid to any ideas of a 'who's got the most annoying/biggest/quickest moving avatar' competition that appears to infest nearly every other forum on the internet.

I'd also like to add a rule to the code of conduct that states that if anyone has an animated signature, we're allowed to kick them to death.

[Tweak72]

Bigger please. We all have broad band these days

Tweaksy

[Wake]

If you haven't already done so, please vote on thread 22843.

[Peter Wolf]

Small is beautiful.I am not fussed either way.I am not even going to vote on it.If everyone wants bigger or different shaped icons then thats just fine.

 Icons are 1" square on Liveleak but any bigger than that is unnecessary.