DELTETHISACCOUNT Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted October 3, 2008 Veteran Share Posted October 3, 2008 (edited) 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Lyle Global Moderator Posted October 3, 2008 Global Moderator Share Posted October 3, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted October 3, 2008 Veteran Share Posted October 3, 2008 ^^^ :blink: Nothing to do with the monitor. It's just about existing realestate under your name (and above your member title/badge) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundayx Veteran Posted October 3, 2008 Veteran Share Posted October 3, 2008 150 tall would be over-kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minifig Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I'm with the I think it's alright crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p858snake Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted October 3, 2008 Veteran Share Posted October 3, 2008 I don't really have a problem with 150x80 because it doesn't add any vertical depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATGC Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I approve of this 150x80 avatar limit change. (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiagosilva29 Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I'm okay with that, as long as I can change mine, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Gotta say, like the 150x80 idea (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kudos Veteran Posted October 3, 2008 Veteran Share Posted October 3, 2008 I'd like to see 160x120, uses full width of the user box, and keeps it to a standard ratio (4:3). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rappy Veteran Posted October 4, 2008 Veteran Share Posted October 4, 2008 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELTETHISACCOUNT Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 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. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rappy Veteran Posted October 4, 2008 Veteran Share Posted October 4, 2008 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted October 4, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted October 4, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.KICK Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted October 4, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted October 4, 2008 I like that also :)160x120 seems a little too big to me Yes 128x128 would be large enough, or 120x120. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScorpioRGc1 Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 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! :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn00pie Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kudos Veteran Posted October 4, 2008 Veteran Share Posted October 4, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATGC Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 no bias in this post :) Current 80x80 (N) 150x80 (Y) 160x120 (N) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 160x120 looks horrible :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.KICK Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted October 4, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted October 4, 2008 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. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts