Avatar Size

[Tim]

What is the most appropriate avatar size to balance personal expression with getting in the way of everyone trying to read?

[E.J.]

I can't really vote because I don't like them at any size. I always have avatars and signatures turned off. They're too distracting and pointless IMO.

[Derwood]

i voted 120x120, but I have a widescreen monitor (1200 pixels) so that's still just 10% of my screen width

[Guest]

What are they currently set to?

[Guest]

What are they currently set to?

100x100

 

But I started off with the default of 80x80. I'm not sure if it changed when I modified it. Let me quick change it to 200x200 and see what happens.

[Guest]

hmm...

 

when I set it to 200x200, the avatars did not resize. I wonder if it modified the files themselves when it did the import.

 

On the other hand, it seems to be shrinking the display of offsite avatars, too, so I'm not quite sure what is going on.

[Guest]

Okay...

 

I can reset the board settings for avatar size, but all the users have to go in individually to resize their avatars from the 80x80 limit. I'd recommend waiting to see what size comes out of the poll before doing it, though.

 

btw - Should I add asymmetric options such as 100 wide x 150 tall?

[rocket]

test to see if my avatar is fudged with

[haltz]

I'd vote for whatever width doesn't screw up the margins.

[Jon]

I'm fine with 140 pixels wide. Anything more stretches things. I don't think height is a big issue.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

150 width plz -- widescreen is the wave of the future

[NCCubFan]

150 width plz -- widescreen is the wave of the future

Maybe, but we're talking about the present. I'm sure there are probably quite a few posters that don't yet have widescreen (even though I do).

[Balsa]

Okay...

 

I can reset the board settings for avatar size, but all the users have to go in individually to resize their avatars from the 80x80 limit. I'd recommend waiting to see what size comes out of the poll before doing it, though.

 

btw - Should I add asymmetric options such as 100 wide x 150 tall?

 

I like this idea.

[CyHawk_Cub]

I voted medium...sounds like a good compromise...

[GhostRunner]

Frankly, if people find that they can't adequately express themselves through a 120x120 image, then they're trying too hard. I voted for the 100x100, personally.

 

There's an entire site I frequent, deviantART, that restricts its users to 50x50 avatars. Nobody there complains, and, in fact, the restriction gets people thinking creatively to maximize the content of the small space.

[Mephistopheles]

150x150

 

it works well with the google one being 145 +10 pixel buffer

[Roast]

i voted 120x120, but i'd live with a 100x150 exception too.

[seanimal]

I voted for the largest possible: either ad-block them if they're too large or get premium and block them all.

[jkrapfl]

I voted for the largest possible: either ad-block them if they're too large or get premium and block them all.

 

Actually, with the new version of the board software, it looks like anyone should be able to block signatures and avatars. Just go to User Control Panel --> Board Preferences --> edit display options. Unless this is something that is going to be going away for non-premium users in the future.

[Andy]

I voted for the largest possible: either ad-block them if they're too large or get premium and block them all.

 

Actually, with the new version of the board software, it looks like anyone should be able to block signatures and avatars. Just go to User Control Panel --> Board Preferences --> edit display options. Unless this is something that is going to be going away for non-premium users in the future.

Tim said all the non-premium features currently will be staying. Premium users will instead get different features.

[NCCubFan]

I voted for the largest possible: either ad-block them if they're too large or get premium and block them all.

There needs to be a reasonable limit. It shouldn't be necessary to block all of them just because a couple of posters don't keep them reasonably sized. If it was possible to block individual posters' avatars and sigs it might be different.

[Derwood]

I voted for the largest possible: either ad-block them if they're too large or get premium and block them all.

There needs to be a reasonable limit. It shouldn't be necessary to block all of them just because a couple of posters don't keep them reasonably sized. If it was possible to block individual posters' avatars and sigs it might be different.

 

does 3.0 allow you as moderators to resize avatars of people who go overboard?

[wolf stansson]

I voted for the largest possible: either ad-block them if they're too large or get premium and block them all.

There needs to be a reasonable limit. It shouldn't be necessary to block all of them just because a couple of posters don't keep them reasonably sized. If it was possible to block individual posters' avatars and sigs it might be different.

 

does 3.0 allow you as moderators to resize avatars of people who go overboard?

It will automatically shrink them.

[Derwood]

I voted for the largest possible: either ad-block them if they're too large or get premium and block them all.

There needs to be a reasonable limit. It shouldn't be necessary to block all of them just because a couple of posters don't keep them reasonably sized. If it was possible to block individual posters' avatars and sigs it might be different.

 

does 3.0 allow you as moderators to resize avatars of people who go overboard?

It will automatically shrink them.

 

i know. what i'm asking is if you remove the auto-resize constraints from the avatars (like the old board), do the moderators then have a tool to go in and fix people's avatars if they take up half the screen? the point being that the old board had a few avatar size problems, but most people were good about it

[XZero771679666304]

I'd vote for whatever width doesn't screw up the margins.

 

I agree. As long as the margins aren't screwed, I don't care.