Avatar size limit

[Rappy Veteran]

150 X 80 looks alright in Neptunes post there maybe that if the devs would be able to apply it (Y)

[Andre S. Veteran]

Look, why SHOULD it be changed?

We are all saying why it shouldn't, but nobody is going to change it unless a VERY strong argument were put forward.

And I fail to see how you can make a strong argument over 20*20 pxls!

Actually, (100*100 - 80*80) is a lot more pixels than 20*20. It effectively is the equivalent of 60*60. Always gotta do your math properly. :cool:

I'm happy with small avatars, and I wish Neowin would cut down on signatures a bit. Some of them take a large amount of thread space, and who reads them anyway?

[Kudos Veteran]

no bias in this post :)

Current 80x80 (N)

150x80 (Y)

160x120 (N)

You framed the 160x120 avatar badly, no wonder the others look better. Give me a minute and i'll upload one that is framed well.

[.KICK]

You framed the 160x120 avatar badly, no wonder the others look better. Give me a minute and i'll upload one that is framed well.

Framed badly or not, 160x120 is far too big. That's almost going double up from 80x80. I don't want avatars to be huge, that's why I like Neowin because other sites just go overboard on avatar sizes. That is just imo. I think 80x80 is fine for the moment though.

[sundayx Veteran]

Having just a wider avatar (150X80) is better, because posts don't extend length-wise, and avatars don't get too large in scale and in size (bandwidth).

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Actually, (100*100 - 80*80) is a lot more pixels than 20*20. It effectively is the equivalent of 60*60. Always gotta do your math properly. :cool:

I'm happy with small avatars, and I wish Neowin would cut down on signatures a bit. Some of them take a large amount of thread space, and who reads them anyway?

You can turn off sigs in your CP under board settings.

[Skulltrail-old]

What's with the ****ing dilemma? It's fine at 80x80. Let this thread die, the OP did...

[Kudos Veteran]

And in case you don't like Iran:

I think they represent the possibilities better than that chick with the indistinguishable background.

[Sethos]

Still think they look a tad too big :/

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Yes that looks a great deal better. Would you be able to implement it?

[ATGC]

That's too big Kudos. It undermines the signatures most people have. Large avatars + Large sigs = bad.

Moderate avatar size (150x80) + Large sigs = Good.

[.KICK]

I think 80x80 is fine, we should stick to that :)

[what]

Still looks too big, and it'll look even worse as you scroll through a topic page with 20 posts, all with that ugly thing on the left.

[gigapixels Veteran]

I think at the very least we should have the width increased to 160 as that won't have any impact on page length.

And remember, if you want to keep a square avatar, you can. You don't need to take up the full size available.

[Sethos]

And remember, if you want to keep a square avatar, you can. You don't need to take up the full size available.

No, but we have to look at other peoples oversized avatars :laugh:

[ATGC]

I think at the very least we should have the width increased to 160 as that won't have any impact on page length.

And remember, if you want to keep a square avatar, you can. You don't need to take up the full size available.

160 is too wide. 150 should be the max width. Having avatars so close to the borders of the forum skin looks ugly and overloaded. You need some white space around it at least...

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

No, but we have to look at other peoples oversized avatars :laugh:

You can also turn off viewing Avatars. :rofl:

[Sethos]

You can also turn off viewing Avatars. :rofl:

Yeah but I'd like to see other peoples avatar, just don't want to look at those huge amateur-board oversized avatars, looks crap.

I agree with Neptune, natural white space around it looks much better.

You should also consider removing .GIF support.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Yeah but I'd like to see other peoples avatar, just don't want to look at those huge amateur-board oversized avatars, looks crap.

I agree with Neptune, natural white space around it looks much better.

You should also consider removing .GIF support.

You should also consider removing .GIF support.

No, there is nothing wrong with Gifs. I selectively remove Avatars and Sigs that I do not wish to view.

[.KICK]

I am going back to 80x80 support, can we drop this? :innocent: Starting to think any bigger may not be worth it!

[Sethos]

I am going back to 80x80 support, can we drop this? :innocent: Starting to think any bigger may not be worth it!

Yeah I agree, next big push is removing .GIF support from both avatars and signatures, it looks crap.

( Is it possible to selectively remove members signature / avatar without blocking the entire hosting site? )

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Yeah I agree, next big push is removing .GIF support from both avatars and signatures, it looks crap.

( Is it possible to selectively remove members signature / avatar without blocking the entire hosting site? )

Yes if you use Firefox.

[Sethos]

Yes if you use Firefox.

Only thing I see is blocking images from an entire site, which isn't what I want.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Only thing I see is blocking images from an entire site, which isn't what I want.

If you use Firefox and the following two extensions it can be done.

Adblock Plus 0 7 5 5

Adblock Plus Element Hiding Helper

You just right click on the Avatar and choose Adblock Image

[gigapixels Veteran]

160 is too wide. 150 should be the max width. Having avatars so close to the borders of the forum skin looks ugly and overloaded. You need some white space around it at least...

Design-wise, it makes more sense to have a uniform margin around the image. With 150 width, the image will be offset to the left by a small amount and looks far worse (to me) than having a 160 width image that has the same margin on both sides.