Bigger Avatars

[OutThere]

I think the most important thing to keep in mind in discussion of increasing avatar sizes is the threshold of having readable text in the tar. I like the fact that on MR there are very few avatars that feature the user's name in an ugly font, simply because there isn't enough space to put really readable text in there.

Make them too big and you'll get butt ugly crap like this: (I had photoshop open...)

 

[Compile 'em all]

Just from your comments.

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

no worries

i understand that the point isn't the 'tar. and i agree. but slightly larger avatars don't hurt really either, it makes people more identifiable and able to express themselves better. i'm not saying 125x125, but looking at the mod's tars which are at 100x100, it wouldn't be bad, and then bump theirs to 125x125 and we're set. at least in my opinion.

and the size limit wouldn't have to be increased greatly, to keep down on the obnoxious gifs and that. but the same ratio as we have now i'd say.

That is a sound suggestion. 100x100 30k for members and 125x125 for mods..etc.

 

[iBlue]

They don't bother me now but I wouldn't mind slightly bigger avatars - mostly I just wish the file size allowance was a bit higher. (40kb or something)

 

[techlover828]

I'd like 100x100 too

PS anyone have any tips on making my tar look better? As soon as I upload it to macrumors the quality god waaay down

 

[bigandy]

You were probably too busy optimizing your avatar to get it under 19k

I've never had a problem with my 30kb 'tar limit. Never had to optimise anything before uploading.

 

[Doctor Q]

Justification for the justification?

It would be nice if just the User Name and Avatar were centered in the huge left side box. It just looks weird, considering most sites center justify the left box, or the box is no larger than the Avatars.

Don't you think the left justification has the advantage that it helps set the user information apart from the post?

 

[redwarrior]

Yes, but then how would we determine who the freaks were.

They have "Contributor" under their user name! jk What happens in teh closet stays there.

i'm a visual person when it comes to fining people's posts.

Me too, I identify members by their tars, and when they change them I get all messed up.

I'd like to see a slight size increase, especially since the speed issue has been resolved. We all blend in here; I think avatars help express who a member is to the rest of the community.

 

[~Shard~]

I'm indifferent on the issue really. I come here and post for the content, discussion and interaction, not for the pretty pictures. On the other hand, it is easier to identify members by their avatars and it does add that element of individuality, which isn't a bad thing. Plus, with a larger size I could definitely come up with some more bastardly avatars!

At the end of the day though, I don't really care. I just don't want MacRumors to turn into many other Forums out there where large avatars, animated signatures etc. end up ruining things.

 

[GSMiller]

I'd like 100x100 too

PS anyone have any tips on making my tar look better? As soon as I upload it to macrumors the quality god waaay down

As do I, 125x125+ is a bit too large.

 

[kabunaru]

As do I, 125x125+ is a bit too large.

How about a compromise? 90x90 or 100x100?
I would want larger avatars too I admit.

 

[Peace]

OOOOH! Can we have 800x600 flash animations in our signatures too?

</stupid ideas>

Get with it.

It's Sliverlight now.

Animated avatars take up as much bandwidth as larger stationary ones don't they ?

 

[Apple Ink]

No! Absolutely Not! NEVER!

 

[GSMiller]

How about a compromise? 90x90 or 100x100?
I would want larger avatars too I admit.

Yeah anywhere between there is perfect.

 

[aristobrat]

I thought the avatars, sized as they currently are, pose an issue on high volume days. Don't they have to move them to some other server when there's going to be a key-note, etc?

 

[TEG]

Don't you think the left justification has the advantage that it helps set the user information apart from the post?

Maybe, but from a visual standpoint, the left justification of the left side box just looks weird, especially with those users with long user names and long locations. The simple, centered, user names on the reply pages look much better. Add the avatar, rank, and location (maybe just a flag) and everything would be nice.

TEG

 

[CalBoy]

I really don't mind the 75X75, but the one thing that does become problematic is trying to find new avatars. The 100X100 category is usually much easier to cater to when avatar-hunting (I don't make my own-no skills in that department ), so that's the one advantage that I can think of.

Other than that, however, I think the 75X75 presents us with an appropriate size (we should be reading your posts, not looking at your massive avatar) and makes the forum less cluttered-looking.

Then again, my point of view is biased, since I've decided I'm happy with Hobbes.

 

[PlaceofDis]

I thought the avatars, sized as they currently are, pose an issue on high volume days. Don't they have to move them to some other server when there's going to be a key-note, etc?

they and attachments already have their own server afaik, and on high volume days their disabled in any event. so thats a non issue.

i wouldn't say 100x100 is massive, its not that much bigger when you think of it. and the file size is still one of the main restricting factors too, which i'm not a fan of increasing by a lot.

 

[kabunaru]

i wouldn't say 100x100 is massive, its not that much bigger when you think of it. and the file size is still one of the main restricting factors too, which i'm not a fan of increasing by a lot.

I think we should take a vote on this. Bigger Avatars or not?
I vote yes. What size? 90x90.

 

[CalBoy]

I think we should take a vote on this.

Thankfully MR isn't a democracy. Any decisions/changes made have been thought of long and hard by the admins and moderators, and that formula seems to work very well.

What size? 90x90.

Are there a lot of 90X90 avatars out there? I naturally assumed that 100X100 was the point at which many more avatars became available. If the size were to be increased, 100X100 would likely be the most logical choice since it would open up more avatar possibilities, and be more standard n'est-ce pas?

 

[kabunaru]

Oh, you guys. You guys are so afraid of change. Loosen up.
Sure, let's make it 100x100. If a lot of people vote yes, then maybe the admins/mods will consider this avatar size change.

 

[CalBoy]

Oh, you guys. You guys are so afraid of change. Loosen up.

Change for the sake of change is foolish.

Sure, let's make it 100x100. If a lot of people vote yes, then maybe the admins/mods will consider this avatar size change.

Indeed the mods and admins do listen to well constructed arguments and cases. If you feel that the avatar sizes should be changed, then make your case for it in this thread. Be compelling, clear, and respectful of the forums' limitations, and I'm sure the mods/admins will take it under advisement.

 

[kabunaru]

Change for the sake of change is foolish.

As for the avatars, I would just want them to be bigger because the 75x75 size is too small for me and 100x100 would be better.

 

[EricNau]

I, for one, like the avatars the size they are currently; it keeps the site looking very clean and un-cluttered.

 

[kabunaru]

I, for one, like the avatars the size they are currently; it keeps the site looking very clean and un-cluttered.

Will 100x100 avatars make it that much more cluttered? I don't think so.

 

[szark]

I wouldn't mind seeing larger avatars. 100x100 for normal users and 125x125 for mods seems like a good idea to me.

As an "old school" member, I feel the need to point out that avatars were restricted to 50x50 when I first joined. They were increased to the current 75x75 back in Feb. 2004 when the current forum design was introduced.