[Suggestion] Slightly increased avatar size for Veterans?

Almasy 04-25-2005 06:51 PM
I would be happy with whatever increase in avatar size Krang chooses to give the Veterans (any number of pixels bigger is better than no increase at all!) ^_^
Darkside 04-25-2005 07:29 PM
What about size in KB's?
Could that be increased?
The Fallen Phoenix 04-25-2005 07:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Darkside
What about size in KB's?
Could that be increased?


Actually, I think that is what Krang is most seeking to avoid, since larger filesizes for avatars globally would mean the forums would take up more resources, and one would observe an overall increase in bandwidth, too. Perhaps even perilously close to the bandwidth limit (if the filesize increase is significant), as avatars consume bandwidth whenever they are viewed.

Don't take my word for it, though. That's just my take on the situation.
X Prime 04-25-2005 08:49 PM
Actually FP, you are more or less completely correct. Dimension doesn't matter (provided it doesn't cause blatantly unecessary sideways scrolling), as filesize is not directly proportional to it.
Krang 04-26-2005 02:35 AM
As of now, the current limits are:
Admins/Super Mods/Mods/Staff: 125x150
Forum Veterans: 115x115
Users/Warned/etc.: 100x100

So far, I have been considering raising those to 130x150, 120x120, and 105x105. However, if we increase the limit for Forum Veterans to 125x125, it would be fair to increase the Users group to 110x110 and the Admins/Mods group to 135x150. Or, we could do a combination of the two by increasing the limits to 130x150, 125x125, and 105x105, although that increases the gap between Users and Forum Veterans. What does everyone think?

quote:
Originally posted by The Fallen Phoenix
quote:
Originally posted by Darkside
What about size in KB's?
Could that be increased?


Actually, I think that is what Krang is most seeking to avoid, since larger filesizes for avatars globally would mean the forums would take up more resources, and one would observe an overall increase in bandwidth, too. Perhaps even perilously close to the bandwidth limit (if the filesize increase is significant), as avatars consume bandwidth whenever they are viewed.

Don't take my word for it, though. That's just my take on the situation.

Exactly. Sorry, but no matter how much the physical size limit is increased, I can't increase the filesize limit due to several factors (bandwidth, disk space, etc.). One of the problems with increasing the physical size, though, is that the larger the limit, the more difficult it is to compress maximum-sized avatars to fit within the filesize limit. I think our current limits are a nice balance, but increasing them a little shouldn't change that too much.
R.Smith 04-26-2005 02:39 AM
130x150, 120x120, and 105x105 sound good to me! Thumbs Up
X Prime 04-26-2005 06:43 AM
As I said before, I have a fetish for having the endpoint be a 5 (presumably for centering reasons?), so I'm opting for 125.
Negotiator_Roger_Smith 04-26-2005 07:48 AM
it will be a long while before i become a veterans Frown
Almasy 04-26-2005 10:27 AM
I think the best option is 130x150, 125x125, and 105x105! ^_^
Dork 04-26-2005 12:42 PM
It would be nice if regular members and veterans could have slightly longer dimensions proportional to their current respect widths. But I don't see why either group needs larger widths than what they have now.

By the way, thanks so much for increasing the size for veterans ^_^ I can do so much more with my avatar now.


muchlove
-Dork
Mugiwara Luffy 04-26-2005 03:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Almasy
I think the best option is 130x150, 125x125, and 105x105! ^_^


For once, I agree with Almasy!
Almasy 04-28-2005 10:33 PM
...so, what's going to happen with the size? Has it been decided yet? ^_^
Krang 04-28-2005 11:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Almasy
...so, what's going to happen with the size? Has it been decided yet? ^_^

I will most likely be increasing it, but I'm still not sure by how much. I would like to hear some more opinions before making a final decision, since this would affect everyone on the forums.
Asirt 04-29-2005 10:03 AM
I think increasing the avatar size a little bit more is a good idea. For the Forum Vets, I also agree that it should be 125x125. For normal members, 110x110 is a good size, since the forum veterans avatar size will be increased by 10 pixels (just to make it fair), and the mods / admin size 130x150 pixels.

That's just what I think, though.

------------------------------------

quote:
I just think that such an increase in the regular members may cause too much bandwidth usage, since there are many more regular members than veterans. Five is definitely an appropriate increase, in my opinion.


If that's the case, then the user can use JPG files instead of PNGs, as the file size is very small compared to PNGs. Other than that, I do agree with you on that, since more and more users are starting to use PNGs for avatars and other images.
Dude Love 04-29-2005 06:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Trisa
I think increasing the avatar size a little bit more is a good idea. For the Forum Vets, I also agree that it should be 125x125. For normal members, 110x110 is a good size, since the forum veterans avatar size will be increased by 10 pixels (just to make it fair), and the mods / admin size 130x150 pixels (or to make the size increase fair, 140x150).


I just think that such an increase in the regular members may cause too much bandwidth usage, since there are many more regular members than veterans. Five is definitely an appropriate increase, in my opinion.

However, I am still conflicted about an increase of the veteran member's avatar size. While a lot can be done with the 125x125 pixel size, I still fear that it may push over bandwidth consumption, and that it would be unfair for the Moderating Team and the Regular Member group. Additionally, X Prime does bring up something interesting with centering issues. I think I understand this (not entirely sure, though), and I feel it is a valid point.

Now, in my conversations with X Prime, I believe he stated that pixel size and file size cannot be altered independently of each other, but if so, I really don't think an increase in file size is all too necessary. I think all my avatars usually have a good margin of room between their size and the limit. Also, if this is true, my bandwidth concerns are no longer applicable to the situation.

So, in summary, I am conflicted, and could support either way. However, I hope that this post has helped to further inform other people thinking about this issue.

PS- I, personally, like the tall avatars of the moderators. I would not be adverse to the veteran members receiving similar pixel constraints.
X Prime 04-29-2005 07:45 PM
You mean can. The ratio between filesize and pixel size is different for each image.
Mr. Fortnight 05-04-2005 08:47 PM
I'm still of the mindset of greater height over an increase of both Width AND Height.

Would be nice to see a forum that doesn't have the same square shaped avatars all the time, and actually "breaks out of the box" for avatars.

And... rectangles do rule.
X Prime 05-04-2005 08:48 PM
...A square is a rectangle. Besides, nothing says that your avatar HAS to be square.
Mr. Fortnight 05-04-2005 08:54 PM
Actually, all shapes are polygons, so the Square/Rectangle issue is moot, but you do have a point. The only problem is is that all of the avatar images are "Left Justified", in other words, the avatar is always centered in the upper left corner of the table space it has. While you CAN have a rectangular image, or one of pretty much any shape (with help from gif transparency), it might not look too good when it is actually introduced in the post as an avatar.

Then again, my asthetics are sorta weird.
X Prime 05-04-2005 08:58 PM
A general increase to both dimensions throws a bone to advocates of all shapes. Nobody has anything taken away (well, except Krang and his bandwidth, but don't tell him that...), and there is universal gain that is relatively equal for all sides rather than biased to one.

Hence, there's no reason not to advocate a proportional increase.