PDA

View Full Version : Do you want a 100x100 avatar?



SirSteve
08-16-2002, 04:28 PM
Do you want a 100x100 avatar?

robman71
08-16-2002, 04:35 PM
IMHO they are just fine the way they are. But others may disagree.

Beast
08-16-2002, 06:25 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing 100x100 max. avatars sizes. Like I said in another post Horrordvds.com uses the same forums software and they run 100x100. It would clean alot of blank area, as well as giving people more options if they wanted animated gifs. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Har Binks

Tycho
08-16-2002, 09:00 PM
Can someone post a picture 100x100 so I can see what you mean?

Nexu
08-16-2002, 09:08 PM
100x100 and 15-20k would be optimal. :)

Here Tycho: :)

Tycho
08-16-2002, 09:39 PM
It makes only a little difference. But I can support this for the rest of you.

Lord Tenebrous
08-16-2002, 10:22 PM
I'm content with 75. I only had one instance where I could have used larger, but the shrunken revision looked fine. :)


Perhaps there's a way to place a larger picture into a profile. Users would have to find an image host, but it's a fair trade-off, I think.

DarthBrandon
08-16-2002, 11:12 PM
Doesn't matter, but a little change wouldn't hurt. I give my support for the rest who want it.:)

JediTricks
08-16-2002, 11:34 PM
I vote No, I think it'd be too big and distracting. I made up this 75 to 100 comparison graphic (attached) to show just how big a difference.


Originally posted by Nexu
100x100 and 15-20k would be optimal. :)

Here Tycho: :) 20k? Even 7k right now seems a bit heavy when you have to load 10-20 of 'em per page, like 200 pages per visit.

Beast
08-16-2002, 11:41 PM
Not that big of a change JT. Not anymore then the ads at the top and bottom of the page make it slower to load. I doubt that making the avatars 25x25 larger, would hurt load times any. Especially when I have seen the 100x100 version in effect, and there is little to no difference in the load times. Plus since they are images, once they are loaded by your browser, until you delete your Temporary Internet Files, it's not going to be very noticable anyway. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Nexu
08-16-2002, 11:42 PM
Do you have temporary internet files? Is that even an option on windows 95? :p

7k is really tiny. You can't do much with it. Only basic animation, and low-quality .jpeg's.

It really wouldn;t be that distracting, and it won't affect the page design in the least, there's room all around.

Beat me to it. :p

Beast
08-16-2002, 11:45 PM
Exactly Nexu, it's not like we are talking about giving everyone giant "Needles" sized avatars. And sorry for beating ya to the punch on the TIF's. ;) :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Nexu
08-16-2002, 11:47 PM
A little OT, but you know, there's an animated smilie out there that goes from ;) to :D, and it looks pretty cool. I'll have to see if I can find it, maybe is can be added here. ;)

Dar' Argol
08-16-2002, 11:53 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing a 100x100 avatar. I really don't think there is that much differance between the two. There were some avatars I would have loved to use before, but I couldn't because they were too large. And I cannot resize GIF's:(. I would not bother me all that much. Besides, if the limit was to be 100x100, that doesn't mean you have to make it that big. But I know most would:rolleyes:

Nexu
08-16-2002, 11:55 PM
Yes, most would, but I wouldn't with my current one. I can't succesfully resize images, and have them look decent. :rolleyes: :mad:

JediTricks
08-17-2002, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Not that big of a change JT. Not anymore then the ads at the top and bottom of the page make it slower to load. I doubt that making the avatars 25x25 larger, would hurt load times any. Especially when I have seen the 100x100 version in effect, and there is little to no difference in the load times. Plus since they are images, once they are loaded by your browser, until you delete your Temporary Internet Files, it's not going to be very noticable anyway.
It's nearly double the area (5,625 vs 10,000 pixels), so if we go up to 100x100 but DON'T change the max size requirement, it'll actually be twice as hard to meet requirements.

And even cached, the nocache on each page requires that cached images be checked against the current version every time.


Originally posted by Nexu
Do you have temporary internet files? Is that even an option on windows 95? :p

7k is really tiny. You can't do much with it. Only basic animation, and low-quality .jpeg's.Ahahahahaha. :rolleyes: Internet Explorer uses the integrated Temporary Internet Files system, even old versions like IE3. Netscape uses a separated system creatively titled "Cache".

Steve isn't talking about raising the maximum filesize so it may very well just be 100x100 @ 7k. If you think 75x75 @ 7k is basic, wait till you try it at double the pixel count. Look at Thrawn's avatar, it's under 7k and it's 75x75 and it's got animation, maybe you're asking too much of your avatar if you can't get that much in.


DA, to resize GIFs, convert their modes from Indexed Color to RGB, then they will be in JPG mode and can be shrunk easily. Convert them back to indexed to save as a GIF or leave as-is to save as a JPG.

Pendo
08-17-2002, 05:53 AM
I've voted for no because I think 75 x 75 is enough and with larger avatars it will be harder to keep within the file size. Also larger avatars can make things look tacky :rolleyes:.

I'd rather things just stay as they are.

PENDO!

bigbarada
08-17-2002, 08:08 PM
I voted 'yes' as long as it doesn't bog everything down, I'm cool with it and I can recall quite a few instances where I wished the avatar requirements weren't so small.

Thumb Wars
08-17-2002, 09:34 PM
i voted yes because i think it would be a little better. but can you not up the file size a bit too?? i think at 100x100, 7k would be hard to meet. maybe 10k or 14k??? just an idea.

Beast
08-17-2002, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Thumb Wars
i voted yes because i think it would be a little better. but can you not up the file size a bit too?? i think at 100x100, 7k would be hard to meet. maybe 10k or 14k??? just an idea.
Well, Horrordvds.com uses 100x100, with a max file size of 20000 bytes. I'm sure that if Sir Steve is thinking about increasing it from 75x75 to 100x100, that he would also use a similar file size. After all, I'm sure he knows what he's doing. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

hango fett
08-18-2002, 09:51 AM
i most defintly either want 100x100 or a bigger size file you can have....all the moving GIF's i want to put on here are way too big!
h

SirSteve
08-18-2002, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by hango fett
i most defintly either want 100x100 or a bigger size file you can have....all the moving GIF's i want to put on here are way too big!
h

This is my concern. I don't care for animated gifs because it would be too distracting with 20 animated 100x100 avatars. Would be like a night in Vegas!

Beast
08-18-2002, 01:56 PM
You could have an option for turning off animated gif's, couldn't you? Or just if an avatar gets to many complaints from other forumites, then it would have to be changed? I don't care much for animated gif's either, but would hate for that to be the reason preventing having 100x100 size avatars. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

hango fett
08-18-2002, 02:14 PM
well, 100x100 is fine even if we can't use GIF's anymore, or if you can!
h

JediTricks
08-18-2002, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
You could have an option for turning off animated gif's, couldn't you? Or just if an avatar gets to many complaints from other forumites, then it would have to be changed?No, we're not going to be the avatar police too.

However, there is a forum option to stop viewing all avatars altogether so that *could* be an option (though what is the point of having an avatar if nobody sees it?). But the idea of having them be 20k each is way too much IMO, some folks have page views at default, that's 20 posts per page, 400k just for their first page view, and if it's a poll thread, the first few pages could be NONE of the same visitors so that'd be an extra 400k x 4 pages - that's a draw of 1.5 meg just for avatars!

2-1B
08-18-2002, 05:45 PM
Rick McCallum in 100x100 glory ? I voted yes. :)

hango fett
08-18-2002, 06:27 PM
no, yoda in 100x100 glory! that would rock! i can't wait to see the update!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is it here yet? *some one off in the distance* no.* how about now? *you know who* NO!* you sure? *whap!*
m'keydokey.
h:crazed:

Nexu
08-19-2002, 12:45 AM
Well, if need be, I will be an Avatar Cop. ;)

Beast
08-19-2002, 12:49 AM
Arn't you guys already avatar cops. I mean you do police people if they put dirty pictures and foul language in their avatars. So this would be similar. Like if Hango's avatar started giving people seizures, you would hopefully do somthing about it. Or if people starting getting motion sickness from it. ;) :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Patient Zero
08-19-2002, 12:56 AM
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I do however get quite anoyed with the flashing avatars. It just makes people harder to ignore.

scruffziller
08-19-2002, 08:42 AM
It would be cool because some of the images don't have as good of quality at 75x75. Plus that way we could have animated tars at bigger size, unlike Hango's flashing Yoda is too small.Disco Yoda (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=159846)

Originally posted by SirSteve


This is my concern. I don't care for animated gifs because it would be too distracting with 20 animated 100x100 avatars. Would be like a night in Vegas!

YES!!!!!!! TO THE HEDONISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hango fett
08-19-2002, 10:54 AM
yeah..that is as big as i can make it, too! :mad:
h

JediTricks
08-19-2002, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Arn't you guys already avatar cops. I mean you do police people if they put dirty pictures and foul language in their avatars. So this would be similar. Like if Hango's avatar started giving people seizures, you would hopefully do somthing about it. Or if people starting getting motion sickness from it. No, we aren't avatar cops. Only when someone complains or it happens to catch our eyes does it become an issue.


BTW, animated GIFs can't move their frames fast enough to trigger seizures.

hango fett
08-19-2002, 10:04 PM
i'm glad no one knows what my avatar is now..the dog thing...only i know what it is.....and that is the biggest i can make that one, too!! or maybe a tad bigger, but not much!
h

hango fett
08-24-2002, 09:01 AM
well, now i have a better way of making my ava. but the size i have now is still as big as it gets. it's ok for now, but later it would be nice to have a bigger file size than 7k. please and thank you!
h

Nexu
08-24-2002, 12:35 PM
Yes, they are to small.

Jargo
10-07-2002, 03:37 PM
Personally I'd like a slight increase in size so lettering can be read more easily. A smidgeon more file size would be sweet too. Just as much as 8k would be enough to get creative with. As someone who uses animated avatars I say yes to this. life would be pretty dull with everything flat. I write minimal frames into my avatars so they don't weigh too much. But with the limit I can't get a smooth enough transitional effect so that it doesn't distract. A larger file size even that little smidgeon would allow a couple more frames which would ease the transitional effects and not distract.

The pixel area is okay at 75 but 100 would be better. Doesn't sound like much but when you draw the things youself it means a hell of a lot. People keep asking me to do avatars of characters in action which I can't achieve very well with a 75 limit. I can't have two characters in the same avatar for example. Well technically i could but they'd look poo. 100 would allow me to do luke and vader locked in combat more easily say. or luke and leia swinging across the death star abyss. okay maybe not that last one but you take my point.

At the end of the day it's a user option as to whether they take up the available space or not. Some users choose to use the tiny avatars from the opld forums still, some choose large monsters. Whatever Steve sets is all we can go on. Whatever the server can take is all we can go on.