Rappy Veteran Posted October 4, 2008 Veteran Share Posted October 4, 2008 150 X 80 looks alright in Neptunes post there maybe that if the devs would be able to apply it (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S. Veteran Posted October 4, 2008 Veteran Share Posted October 4, 2008 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kudos Veteran Posted October 4, 2008 Veteran Share Posted October 4, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.KICK Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundayx Veteran Posted October 4, 2008 Veteran Share Posted October 4, 2008 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted October 4, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted October 4, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skulltrail-old Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 What's with the ****ing dilemma? It's fine at 80x80. Let this thread die, the OP did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kudos Veteran Posted October 4, 2008 Veteran Share Posted October 4, 2008 And in case you don't like Iran: I think they represent the possibilities better than that chick with the indistinguishable background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Still think they look a tad too big :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted October 4, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted October 4, 2008 Yes that looks a great deal better. Would you be able to implement it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATGC Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 That's too big Kudos. It undermines the signatures most people have. Large avatars + Large sigs = bad. Moderate avatar size (150x80) + Large sigs = Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.KICK Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 I think 80x80 is fine, we should stick to that :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
what Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigapixels Veteran Posted October 4, 2008 Veteran Share Posted October 4, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATGC Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted October 4, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted October 4, 2008 No, but we have to look at other peoples oversized avatars :laugh: You can also turn off viewing Avatars. :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted October 4, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted October 4, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.KICK Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 I am going back to 80x80 support, can we drop this? :innocent: Starting to think any bigger may not be worth it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 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? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted October 4, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted October 4, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Yes if you use Firefox. Only thing I see is blocking images from an entire site, which isn't what I want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted October 4, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted October 4, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigapixels Veteran Posted October 4, 2008 Veteran Share Posted October 4, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts