Petition to allow for larger avatars

[Presence]

Back in the day I understood why low size/kb count was necessary to make sure the ca.org community ran as smooth as a brazillian wax post dip in the baby oil pool. But this 80x80 thing has to go.

I ask, no I beg of the admins to allow for such a gift that we may have...

150 x 150

Too Bold you say! I think not friends.

[Denart]

dead on man! :D

CA.org doesn't need to host our large avatars, so the size wouldn't matter since we won't be bleeding their bandwidth

EDIT: what about banners in our signatures? (with a size restriction of course) I mean, this is an art forum! :)

[Pontemonti]

I think 150x150 is too big. As in: it takes up too much space on my monitor.

[USER777]

yeah definitely a good idea, especially for an art forum.. what size does eatpoo allow? their avatar size seems appropriate for an artforum..

[jetpack42]

how about no.

[ExeCute]

I would be annoyed to see banners in signatures...i can imagine it getting ugly.

i agree with ponte that i wouldn't want larger avatars takin up my screen.

[endregan]

I disagree.

[0kelvin]

Bigger avatars: Sure, why not.

Banners in sigs: No, no, please no!



0kelvin

[Groover McNab]

All avatars should be 800x600, and made in flash, with a 30 second preloader, and play music. Also, the wc3 should bring back the <blink> tag.

[cartoonfox]

i agree with jetpack (for once!! *runs* ^-^)

anyway, bigger avatars has nothing to do with CA's bandwidth, its to do with me having to wait ages for all the damn things to load, plus all the cool art im trying to see on the thread ^-^ 80x80 is fine, stop complaining. and banners would suck, like execute said, it would just look ugly, and distract from the actual art.

i think the forums should be a simple as possible, do you visit the forums for looking at the 'cool' avatars, or the artwork? ...





peace :7up:

[Noah Bradley]

I vote for the anti-big-avatars-and-banner-sigs people. :)

[Presence]

Yeah back the loveboat up a second here, I in no way want banners, for all that is good and sacred this is not the direction I wanted this to go.

Though, I do see this as an art forum and I know there are those who find the 80x80 a little on the restricting side. For those of you who think doubling the the avvy size will slow down your load time you can do the math and will find that it will make no difference at all.

I think some of the posts are hinting at this could get out of control but I highly doubt it would and as for the preload flash etc, lol, I am sure the admins could put a kb restriction on the avvs as well.

[egerie]

I'm against as well.
For avatars, learn how to optimise and make the most of each pixels. Even if it means you'll have to sharpen to death or learn pixel art :p
Ok seriously, 80pixels seems okay to me. Unless you have a 2500x3400 resolution :D. Perhaps allowing them to be a little taller could be okay. Something like 80x100 but nothing over that.

As for banner, please no. Or else I whip out my collection of filters and bad color combination. I'M SERIOUS MAN ! I GOT PHOTOSHOP AND AM NOT 'FRAID TO USE IT !!!11!11 :uzi: *pant pant shifty eyes pant* ;)

[Denart]

I understand

no banners. they're not cool for a clean spankin' forum

:bashful:

[MoP]

What Pontemonti said.

80x80 pixels is fine. This site is about the art, it's not a "who has the funniest/best avatar" contest. I want to look at people's drawings or paintings, not at a large avatar. There's nothing 80x80 pixels can't do that 150x150 would do any better.

[NoUseFrAName]

if there's an increase in size, 150x150 is overkill. 100x100 seems reasonable.

-Rob

[deschamps]

Man, I hate those huge avatars on Eatpoo.
Keep it how it is!

[bizarre]

i'm sorry, what did you just say?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/Demianmoon/shiver.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/Demianmoon/help_me_im_in_hell.gif

it sounded like you were whining that small avatars can't be cool. at least that's what i thought i heard.

i'd love to have left this reply as it originally was, with these two avatars and simply, "stfu noob" ... but i decided against it.

it's about art, not avatars. last i checked anyway. avatars are like clothes. i sometimes wear flashy clothes, you know... red vinyl pants and hotrod flame cowboy boots and a battery-acid sprayed and frayed wifebeater and a Stetson hat with a police badge on the forhead...

but it's not about the avatar. so, stfu noob.

[karma militia]

i reckon we should make them smaller :pirate:

[Lauren Short]

i think my shoes are big enough as it is :P

[Dan Milligan]

Don't mess with the size. Pont has done a beautiful job on this site.. I like to enjoy his work as well. Although I enjoy poo sometimes the threads can be a little overwhelming..imho

Peace
Dan

[S.C. Watson]

CA's too cool for juvinile big sized avatars and ass ugly sig banners.

No to both. :confident

[Presence]

I dont think people would suddenly start making these ridiculous avys, if you go to eatpoo for example you may notice there is a variety of sizes even though they have much higher limits. Alot of people still use 60x60.

Thanks for that post though Bizzare, felt like I was back in highschool there for a moment.

[Aerythes]

No. Please, no.

(But if they really have to be made larger, how about 85 x 85 pix? )

[Pontemonti]

...I know there are those who find the 80x80 a little on the restricting side. For those of you who think doubling the the avvy size...
Slightly off-topic:
When did 150x150 become twice the size of 80x80? Last time I checked, 80*80*2 = 6400*2 = 12800 ~= 113^2 = 113*113.

150x150 is in fact ~3.5 times larger than 80x80.

:bashful:

[Dizon]

why make a big deal about this?

[pvrhye]

Mark me as one for the opposition. Let em get no bigger than 100 x 100 I say

[John]

If anything, allow for 120 x 80. If i had my way, i'd like the username to remain at a fixed place horizontally and line up with the avatar (if there is one) vertically. Avatar size could be fixed and a 80 x 80 invisible placeholder installed for those without an avatar to reduce clutter. The avatar could be moved down and to the right by 3 - 5 px. Then again, i don't know if that is possible with html and different browsers and all ...
I'd also like to be able to choose different layout / color scheme .css in the User CP as the trademark conceptart.org green/brown is, well, not funky. It's not exactly easy on the eyes either. I like my screen bright, and a high contrast for easier reading. A 10% gray would make a more neutral background for pictures. Maybe i'm just jaded though. Anyway, we had the "change the design discussion" and i know i'm just bitching. Just wanted to give my opinion.

[obid619]

bigger avatars = more coolnes! :confident

[dfacto]

Shut up and draw. :yayca:

[davi]

this sounds like an awesome idea.












you are banned.

[Slash]

Imagine davi's post with a 120x120 avatar. Now add a banner in his sig, along with his sig text.

then his post would take up as much space as it does now, even sans the 12 or so empty lines.

Sorry to repeat the things that have been said like a parrot, but hey, its about art, not the avatars.

[bizarre]

|-----------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------------------|
My Banner Is Better Than Yours!!! Click Teh Linkzor!

My Avatar Is Bigger Than Yours!!! Click Teh Linkzor!

||||||||||
||||||||||
||||||||||
||||||||||
||||||||||

[Presence]

How did avatars suddenly become a comparison to art? I think that is a little much.

And for the 100th time, no banners, that wasn't even in the original post.

[Sorknes]

Larger avatars in a place where the avatar is on top of your post, and has a great and more personal layout on the posts than all the Ez, BB and PHPbb boards?

Uhh..... no, thank you.

[dfacto]

Look, basically your av is a recognition picture, at least for me. I see an av, I know who posted. I don't look at people's avs so I can enjoy them, so I see no need to have a large av. It will just increase page load times, and take up more post space. It will still serve the same function, without having something meaningful added by larger size restrictions, so there really isn't a point is there?

Speaking of which, I need an avatar...

[N D Hill]

I don't think we need bigger avatars. For every good avatar there are ten shitty ones. If you ever look at forums with large avatar constraints all you really ever see is big images that shove the actual post to the side or game sprites that take forever to load.

...In anycase, will someone help me size this up to 80x80 so i can use it?
http://ndhill.astahost.com/img/face.gif

[chukw]

Wow, so CA can look like some "Old Lady" forum, with dancing kitten and puppy, waving flag gifs and wot? Fuck that. I don't want to see a giant animated, looping-soundtrack banner to your deviantart page either- grrrrrrr! >:|

As lond as I can get unlimited crankiness bandwidth, I'm happy. :^^:

[Orcatraz]

what about banners in our signatures? (with a size restriction of course) I mean, this is an art forum!
yeah definitely a good idea, especially for an art forum.. what size does eatpoo allow? their avatar size seems appropriate for an artforum..
Yeah, this is an art forum. I come to see art! Not avatars. They are plenty big already.
The avatars on eatpoo make it look like a pop up page full of viruses IMO. Bunch of kiddy-time nonsense.
Only about 5% of avatars are of people’s art, most are funny photos and game sprites. Those don't need to get any bigger.
Why bring this site down to the level of eatpoo and devart?
If Ca.org ever caters to this BS I hope they offer a way to disable the viewing of avatars for those who don't want to see it. :rolleyes: :nohope:
:yayca:

[blankslatejoe]

how about no.

hahahaah


seriously... less clutter, more substance... this isn't a place for web sheeeeenanigans, it's an art forum.

[jmascho]

I think the 10 line sigs are enough as it is...

small\simple = good imo

[Redder]

I think it's fine the way it is. I find huge avatars distract to much.

[USER777]

maybe my post was misunderstood. i didnt refer to denart and his signature edit. i am totally against banners in signatures, just thinking about the poor people with 56 k modems and such.. it would take ages. i am simply for a LITTLE increasement in the maximum size of the avatars, something like 100*100.. because some avatars simply dont "work" at 80*80..

i know this is an "art" forum and people come to see the art and not the fancy avatars, but the avatar is the first thing you notice when you read a post made by someone and therefore quite important.. i dont know if other people do that but when i see someone who has a very original or in some way outstanding or pleasing avatar i take a look at their signature, threads started, profile, website etc.. just because i was impressed by the avatar picture..

my 2 cents 8)

[I0N]

I agree with jetpack cartoonfox redder and myself!

[blankslatejoe]

all the more reason to be impressed when you see a 80x80 that you dig.

[egerie]

Wow, so CA can look like some "Old Lady" forum, with dancing kitten and puppy, waving flag gifs and wot?
Hey now what's wrong with dancing kitten ???? ;)

Can anyone remind me if there's also an avatar weight restriction as well ? I forgot... If there isn't, it might be something to consider too.