Suggestion: Increase the avatar size for non-supporters

[Zehn]

I might add that avatar sizes shouldn't be that big of deal, as they are not meant to stand out too much, its just a small image used to give people distinction

 

[machomuu]

I might add that avatar sizes shouldn't be that big of deal, as they are not meant to stand out too much, its just a small image used to give people distinction

Conceptually, yes, but I don't really think that's what most people see it as, otherwise avatar size wouldn't really be much of an incentive or a point of contention.

In some cases, avatars are representations of users and their interests, in others it merely showcases art that they like or art that they made and specifically want to be seen. I quite enjoy the avatar choosing process myself, having never been one to go for defaults or like. And similarly, I'm proud of my avatars, so I jumped on the chance to get a larger one, and I'm sure many others feel this way as well, so on a human level I'd say it's something of a big deal.

 

[Zehn]

I see what you are saying however I was just pointing out the original point. Also I don't think the size limit has ever well.. limited me, even before being a supporter. But meh the snowball effect would be a bit stupid side effect that we cant really avoid, especial since I don't think the higher up supporter are that bothered by there limit

 

[donavannj]

Guys i have a QHD monitor and the avatars seem fine to me, unless im missing the point...

Then again, I keep PC scaled to 90% b/c holy crap too big

That's not a small resolution, though?

Or is this in response to the proposition of showing larger avatars to larger displays and saying you have no problems with how they currently are?

 

[Abnegation]

I'm considering quadrupling the sizes for two scenarios: high-DPI displays, and situations where the viewport height is very tall. A few variables.

Follow the grain of thought, it's a joke to say "130x130 isn't small". These conventions were made during the birth of vB 3 over a decade ago and I'm seeing weak rhetoric to keep such as size as default. ~97% of people use higher resolutions than the average resolution type back in 2004 when these conventions were standard on forums. There's cause to rework this.

Avatars are important to people, as evident by the thousands of words written about them in this thread in less than a day. A contextual replacement is certainly worth working in at this point.

The resolution statistics speak for themselves. Any reason to keep the "old" convention is based on sentimentality, not logical web development standards in my opinion.

Spoiler:

 

[KorpiklaaniVodka]

That's not a small resolution, though?

Or is this in response to the proposition of showing larger avatars to larger displays and saying you have no problems with how they currently are?

130x130 really is too small, imo (for the reasons I've stated). Maybe I'm used to 180x180/200x200 avatars on two other Pokemon-related forums, lol

Or just do what flight said and remove the differences between the avatars. Set it to 160x160 or something.

 

[donavannj]

130x130 really is too small, imo (for the reasons I've stated). Maybe I'm used to 180x180/200x200 avatars on two other Pokemon-related forums, lol

Or just do what flight said and remove the differences between the avatars. Set it to 160x160 or something.

I'll refer you to my post on the first page as to why 130x130 is not "too small" and is actually quite large:

The typical forum out there is still capping avatar sizes at 80x80 or other similar numbers smaller than 100x100. Going through other forums I am registered at and have frequented in the past, here are their current avatar caps (leaving forums unnamed):

85x85 (Urban photos and lifestyle forum)
No Cap (because all images are auto-resized to a 100x100 box; SimCity fansite)
120x120 (other major Pokemon forum)
No Custom Avatar until certain requirements are met (images are typically 100x100) (other major Pokemon forum)
2 MB filesize limit (all images are auto-resized to a 80x80 box) (major webcomic site's forum)
Preferred 200x200 minimum (since all images are auto-resized to a 96x96 box) (major Pokemon forum)
80x80 (on this one, avatars are a VIP feature only, since the forums aren't the focus of the game) (online browser game)
1 MB filesize limit (all images are resized to scale to fit to a 100x100 box) (legal streaming site's forums)
100x125 (major anime cataloging site)
No Custom Avatar ever (all images resized to 100x100) (major Pokemon TCG forum)
200x200 preferred minimum (all images are auto-resized to 192x192 boxes, though this forum changed their forum software very recently) (other major Pokemon forum)



This is just of the forums that I remember exist and can remember my logins for. Bolded are Pokemon forums for easy comparison to other fansites.



As you can see, PC's regular member limit is already on the higher end, especially with regards to what will actually be displayed in the postbit. The only one higher for what is displayed in the postbit is that last Pokemon forum. Granted, this is a small sample size of forums, but 80x80 to 100x100 is typically the norm for avatar limits on forums (other forums I've frequented in the past are just escaping me at the moment, but the vast majority capped things at 80x80). If we raise all of the limits too high, it affects how usable PC is for those browsing from slower connections, as well as affecting site usability for those who are on smaller screens. And, if memory serves, the limits were raised quite a bit somewhere around a year and a half ago.

TL;DR: 130x130 is still quite large.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

lmao

you guys really shouldn't live in the past about an image size of all things. If anything I'm up for upping the limit for the sake of fairness and the sake of symmetry, but if I really think about it Gavin's right in that we need to move to a more modern-web-friendly solution for avatars... surprise surprise, like pretty much every other major modern social website on the net. Come on now.

 

[Abnegation]

TL;DR: 130x130 is still quite large.

In 2005

 

[Caite-chan]

130x130 is honestly quite large. You go else where and avatars are no bigger than 100x100. And 100x100 is usually the standard or base on most (not all) boards and other places OR they will be scaled down to that size.

Your avatar is just suppose to be a small glimpse of who you are. It's NOT suppose to be the main focus and that's the same for your signature. The main focus is talking to other people on the boards. We're here to have fun with each other.

As other people have said if we up it now someone else will post about this AGAIN about how we should up it again...and again...and again. Quit worrying so much about about the size of everyone's avatar and go have fun.

 

[Nah]

just a reminder that 130x130 being small/large is subjective as fuck

 

[Abnegation]

Why is everyone saying that 130x130 is "large" because other forums haven't evolved on this matter either? Don't be so afraid of innovation simply because another forum you frequent are stuck in the last decade in terms of web design. It's simple, really. Create something that scales avatars depending on screen and window size, and increase the maximum for everyone. That way nobody has to complain about an avatar being too big for the screen, and everyone gets the option to increase their canvas for creating their avatar. It's a win win.

I said it before, these conventions were common over 10 years ago because the average internet speed was much lower, and the most common screen resolutions are now much larger. Not only that but web technologies have advanced so much that image sizes aren't a problem any more so long as you handle them.

The actual pixel size of avatars isn't really the issue, avatars should be scaled contextually. Stop making excuses for keeping avatar sizes down because "other forums don't do it". Who cares.

 

[Spinosaurus]

I'm saying it's large because I find it large. Other forums have nothing to do with it.

Frankly I don't exactly care what your avatar is and what it looks like so the less screen it takes, the better for me. The only reason I even have them on is to instantly recognize members.

 

[Hikamaru]

Something appears to be wrong on my end. All the larger avatars appear to have been shrunken down when I clearly had the "reduce large avatars" option disabled.

 

[Hikamaru]

Your screen's not wide enough to display them large.

So that's what caused it? I never would have imagined that to be the case.

 

[Dedenne1]

So this is what happens when people complain about avatar sizes

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

Spoiler:

It looks like it's doing the exact opposite

also dat interpolation, nasty buttons thar

 

[Taemin]

Spoiler:

I haven't laughed that hard over something on here in a long time. gg

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

Yeah I'm now thinking I should just punk everyone

You know exactly why

I am not a web developer. Hell, I don't even hardly work with interpreted langs. C++ bitch.

And damn you, Ashton!

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

………nope nope. You're not seeing the larger avatars because your viewport is small.

Is an 8K monitor enough? I can buy one of those right now.

You know it should display big when I zoom in Jake, come on 8D