Avatar size limit

[DELTETHISACCOUNT]

I'm all for the 150 x 80, would fit in much better with the Subscriber, MVC, and Adminstrative badges.

EDIT: Nevermind, the badges are 113px wide.

[markwolfe Veteran]

I kind of like the 150x80 idea. But of course, it's not my decision in the end ;)

Can someone (admin level?) say, "subscriber feature"? ;)

EDIT: Oh, and include us vets, too. :shiftyninja:

[Andrew Lyle Global Moderator]

You do realize that it is 150 wide, and still 80 tall, so it would not make pages any longer at all. ;)

Hmm, that is fine on a wide screen monitor, But I was thinking 80 wide, 150 tall.

[markwolfe Veteran]

^^^ :blink:

Nothing to do with the monitor. It's just about existing realestate under your name (and above your member title/badge)

[sundayx Veteran]

150 tall would be over-kill.

[Minifig]

I'm with the I think it's alright crowd.

[p858snake]

Its alight as they are and if changes they should in a square shape (eg: 150*80 is a rectangle, not square).

And for the people having issues with the staff/sub/mvc "badge" avatars, use the upload function compared to the link function.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I don't really have a problem with 150x80 because it doesn't add any vertical depth.

[ATGC]

I approve of this 150x80 avatar limit change. (Y)

[tiagosilva29]

I'm okay with that, as long as I can change mine, lol.

[Sethos]

Gotta say, like the 150x80 idea (Y)

[Kudos Veteran]

I'd like to see 160x120, uses full width of the user box, and keeps it to a standard ratio (4:3).

[Rappy Veteran]

I'd like to see 160x120, uses full width of the user box, and keeps it to a standard ratio (4:3).

I like that idea (Y)

Can anyone from the staff speak about the sig limits? if theres any chance one day down the line that the limit will be raised from 50kb to say 75kb?

[DELTETHISACCOUNT]

I think the sig limit is something we still have to deal with, namely for the dial-uppers.

I know that this day and age, it's nearly obsolete, but there's still that one guy out there usin it. ;)

[Rappy Veteran]

I think the sig limit is something we still have to deal with, namely for the dial-uppers.

I know that this day and age, it's nearly obsolete, but there's still that one guy out there usin it. ;)

Yeah I know its a major problem but if you were dial up with some of the sigs on here high end of 50kb you would disable them anyway?

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Yeah I know its a major problem but if you were dial up with some of the sigs on here high end of 50kb you would disable them anyway?

Yes why punish the majority for the actions of a few. They can be turned off.

[.KICK]

Gotta say, like the 150x80 idea (Y)

I like that also :)

I'd like to see 160x120, uses full width of the user box, and keeps it to a standard ratio (4:3).

160x120 seems a little too big to me

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

I like that also :)

160x120 seems a little too big to me

Yes 128x128 would be large enough, or 120x120.

[Kronir]

Well, they are a bit small for those of us using higher resolutions, particularly when most other forums use 95x95 or 100x100 (Hexus has the same issue); I think 90x90 would be a good compromise, personally...

Heck, I can barely read the text on my own avatar! :(

[sn00pie]

I would prefer 100x100 avatars, I don't mind if we disable signature pictures to have the 100x100 avatars. Can we have an official vote?

[Kudos Veteran]

I like that also :)

160x120 seems a little too big to me

Yes 128x128 would be large enough, or 120x120.

Restricting the width to less than the available width is fairly pointless imo, it has zero impact on the presentation of the page. If you're willing to accept 120px in height, you may as well accept the full available space.

[ATGC]

no bias in this post :)

Current 80x80 (N)

150x80 (Y)

160x120 (N)

[Sethos]

160x120 looks horrible :|

[.KICK]

Nice Neptune, I tried to do something like that earlier but failed.

I agree with Sethos, 160x120 looks horrid.

150x80 looks good but maybe 140x80?

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Restricting the width to less than the available width is fairly pointless imo, it has zero impact on the presentation of the page. If you're willing to accept 120px in height, you may as well accept the full available space.

Yes that makes sense. ;)