James

[font="Palatino Linotype"]I don't think it looks anything like a default skin, which I'm glad for. Although the main reason it was chosen initially was because there were a few people who had always been asking for a much simpler skin on the previous version of OB. So I hope it's satisfying that need in some way. I think building the custom stuff next will be quite a bit tougher, in any case. [/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]The obvious theme here is that - just as with skins or layout - we'll never achieve a consensus about one particular design. What we will do is make a good attempt to balance what most people want with what we can technically achieve, while maintaining quality and consistency throughout. I'm sure that in the end some people will think our avatars too big, others too small. My answer to both groups is that I'm sure we'll end up with a beautiful avatar library to choose from and/or there will be plenty of help to create custom avatars where necessary. [/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]Haha, yes, XL Basic is quite a bit different than the default skin. It also cost more. I'm glad we didn't keep the default skin around. That would indicate a total lack of effort in my opinion. [/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]I am also having problems with the forum column on the main page, but only on the XL Basic skin and only on the Anime & Manga and General Discussion & Support categories are showing differently to the others. This happens with Firefox on both Windows and OSX. [/font]

[quote name='Allamorph' date='04 June 2010 - 02:35 PM' timestamp='1275622507' post='694514'] [font="Calibri"]Right. And then we got off on talking about just 150-square for some reason or other, so I was just trying to get back on track. =P The alternative is you're Professor Farnsworth.[/font] [/quote] [font="Palatino Linotype"]Haha, quite possibly. Anyway, I haven't actually done a mock-up of how this will look, but I'm thinking we can definitely go bigger than 150 pixels wide. I'll check out 200x125 and see how it looks on the postbit. For the library itself, I'm a fan of keeping a locked width but allowing the height to vary - this will stop the forums from looking too messy, but it will still provide variety for members. Also, you guys might remember that when we created the first library, we had a range of requirements including not only size, but also border type and general image quality. I expect that we will have similar standards this time, because we want to make sure our own library is consistent and of a high standard. There's also the added benefit that if we maintain strong guidelines for our library, it will be easier for members to mass-produce avatars if they wish. Of course, the site itself can only enforce maximum dimensions, so custom avatars can be any size so long as they are the same or smaller dimensions than the maximums we set. [/font]

[quote name='Allamorph' date='04 June 2010 - 02:21 PM' timestamp='1275621701' post='694511'] [font="Calibri"] And since the original dimensions are 150x80, or 150 pixels wide by 80 pixels high, isn't that increasing the height? =P Also Kei says 200x125 looks good.[/font] [/quote] [font="Palatino Linotype"]Yeah you're right, but originally I think we were talking about increasing the width because we now have a bigger postbit. Unless I'm imagining something I posted in my dreams, which is entirely possible.[/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]Sorry, I thought I was clear that it was for the library (in this thread, in the announcement and in the thread title itself). But just to clarify what I mean (Allamorph did mention this, but I figure I should re-iterate anyway): One reason I wanted to post this poll is because we could set our maximum dimensions to a rectangular format if we wanted (i.e. 150x100 or something), which would mean that all [i]library [/i]avatars would be rectangular. But it would also mean that if you upload your own, you could have a square of 100x100. Does that make sense? However, my thinking now is that we can possibly set our maximum to 150x150 and then choose for our rectangular avatars to be 150 x [insert height]. Then we can divide the library into two main categories - square and rectangular. This is based on the assumption that we [i]can [/i]subdivide the library through the forum software. I'm not sure about that yet. If we can it'd be good, because then members can create both square and rectangular versions of their avatars so you can choose between either format if you're using an OB-provided avatar. That would be really ideal if we can do it - plus it would ensure that the site still looks neat and consistent. Allamorph: The original suggestions were about increasing width rather than height. 150x100 means 150 pixels wide and 100 pixels high. Sorry if I'm stating what you already know, but from memory I don't think anyone was suggesting increasing height and not width. [/font]

[quote name='Rabanastre' date='04 June 2010 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1275613594' post='694492'] I don't see why we have to have a poll about it. Why not just have a 150 x 150 resolution and make everyone happy? That way the people who want square avatars can have them and the people who want rectangular avatars can have those too. [/quote] [font="Palatino Linotype"]Yes, if we set a maximum of 150x150, you can have a square avatar. That's for custom avatars only though. Our pre-set avatar library will have one format; that's what the poll is about. A lot of people, especially new members, are likely to use our in-built avatar library. Plus it's a good creation guide for any members who want to make avatars to upload to the library as well. [/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]That's so sad. I used to love The Golden Girls. My favourite character was easily Dorothy (does anyone remember Bea Arthur showing up on Judge Judy? That was kind of bizarre). I hope Betty White lives forever. [/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]Well, we can set an overall maximum that might include a greater width than height. This would mean that you could upload a smaller avatar that is actually a square (I'm pretty sure this is still possible on IP Board). Having said that, I would like our avatar library itself to be a uniform size because this is neater and more consistent. So for those avatars, I'd need to decide whether they should be square or rectangular in shape. I think I will create a poll for this so that we can at least decide on that aspect ratio and then I can determine what sizing would work best for our layouts. That's very strange...I merged the topics but the system didn't put my new post at the top. Hm. [/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]So if we expand avatar size, I just have one question - should the images be square or rectangular? I kind of like the rectangular "widescreen" look, but either way I don't particularly mind. Rebellion: the browser is only as wide as your screen if you maximise it. It can still be any size you like. Admittedly though I never maximise my browser window on my home computer, mostly because my screen resolution is big enough so that I don't need to (plus I've just always hated maximising the browser for some reason - I don't entirely know why). [/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]I think the wide space isn't really going to change. Bigger avatars might make a slight difference, but mostly to the postbit itself. The overall width of the topic display is entirely dependent on how wide your browser window is. Still, we do now have more space to play with, so it's probably logical to increase the resolution of some of our graphics to keep up with the growing site resolution. [/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]I actually think that the avatar dimensions work well with the vertical layout, in part because they reduce the horizontal white space in the postbit. Having said that, I suppose we could achieve the same thing by having much larger square avatars. One reason we haven't yet changed the dimensions for avatars is because we actually have a huge library of user-created avatars (which has yet to be loaded onto this version) and I was a bit hesitant to just discard those. Having said that, I'd be more than happy to look at changes to the dimensions if people are happy with new dimensions and don't care too much about discarding our avatar library and starting fresh. Maybe we should put up a poll about this? [/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"][color="#808000"][/color][/font][font="Palatino Linotype"]I think the ability to change your Display Name three times a month is a bit of a novelty right now, but once people get used to it I have a feeling it won't be happening frequently. But who really knows. Anyway, we have a really great feature in profiles called Display Name History. If you click that link you'll not only see a list of Display Names, but you'll even see where the changes were. Admittedly that means you need to check a profile page to see this, but still, I wouldn't want us to allow Display Name changing [i]without [/i]a history being accessible. [/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]It was still worth bringing that up CaNz - most members will probably need to mark their messages as read so that they can basically reset the system and start again. Glad it's working for you now. [/font]

[quote name='Desbreko' date='02 June 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1275455684' post='694237'] [color=#4B0082]I don't think the drop-down uses a cookie to change the skin like vB did. As far as I can tell, it saves the change directly to your account. Because I can change the skin to XL Basic, log out and clear all my OB cookies, and see Wet Paint as the default while logged out. Then when I log back in, it goes back to XL Basic.[/color] [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Oh I see - well that's certainly a more intelligent way of doing it. But then I wonder what the issue is with Indi's account.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]That's weird - you shouldn't have to settle with that. It should be stored in your OB cookie I'd think - your browser should remember whatever skin you've applied on your account. Hm...[/font]

[font="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Okay, I've now added Wet Paint as the default setting. Thanks for your feedback everyone. [/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well spotted! I've fixed Cat's title and now the issue is gone.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm very interested in this poll, because it may be worth making "Wet Paint" our default skin until we add more in the future. What do you guys think? That way XL Basic can still be there for anyone who wants a simpler/minimal skin. Edit: Oh! Weird, my font is automatically bold! Got to sort that one out, haha.[/font]

[quote name='Stephanie' date='02 June 2010 - 10:57 AM' timestamp='1275436660' post='694156'] [size=1]I'm caught between wanting to say spiffy and WTFWHY?! ....[/size] [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]If you visit OB World, you'll see a recent post about why we had to make the change. So, being forced into that position, it was a contest between vB 4.0 and IP Board. In the end, IP Board won out.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Haha, I'm sure Des will be working on another Caramelldansen skin in the future, but the one I'm talking about isn't the same. XD If I had tried to do that skin right now, we'd never have re-launched! My hope is that it'll actually be easier for me to update existing skins now, because this software works very differently to vB. In the end I'm hoping we'll have quite a few skin options, with a mix of totally custom skins and some pre-developed ones. We definitely always lacked enough skin options on the old system, I think. [/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Again, I just want to thank everyone for their patience. As per usual with any site launch, we have a few teething issues that need to be sorted out - I'm really happy to see that most people are quickly adapting to the changes. In terms of Reputation and Friends and stuff, I just want to say that the former was already discussed and voted on by the members ages ago. So we're really just responding to that. What you'll find, though, is that there's no "negative" rep in our system (you can vote down a post, but nobody's rep can go below zero, if that makes sense). And as you add points to people you'll notice that the titles are just fun - they aren't serious or anything like that. And Friends is not a new feature. It's always been there in the form of "Buddies". The only difference is that now your Friends are displayed on your Profile - but you can make them invisible if you wish. The idea is not to force people into too much, but to give everybody the choice. We've tried to do that as much as possible. And in terms of the overall design...well, all I can really say is that we obviously can't please everyone. However, we [i]will[/i] be adding more layouts once we have the setup right. That will hopefully include some more OB-customised stuff (I have been working on a new skin for a while that will be really colourful and [i]very[/i] OB - but first we just have to get our collective heads around how to best implement it here). So it's all coming, we just ask for your patience. I'm going to harass my friend about those OB emoticons, too![/font]

[quote name='Lady Shy' date='01 June 2010 - 11:23 PM' timestamp='1275395037' post='694098'] Also, I love the stuff we can do, like Member linking and editor resizing and everything. Could we do that before? I used the minimal editor. :V [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Those are the little touches that are new on this version. There are really just too many things for me to mention even on OB World, so I figured you guys would have some fun discovering them as you go. I just think that in general the site feels a lot more modern - and not just because of the design. You'll notice if you look at the Recently Added Topics panel on the right and if you click the arrows above it, the forums actually slide across to fill the screen. I like those little touches. [/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I actually had somebody organised to design a set of emoticons [i]just[/i] for OB - totally custom ones. He showed me a sample but then he kind of dropped off the map. I have a couple of other options though. But yeah, in any case, I wouldn't mind replacing the default emoticons with our own. [/font]