New Avatar Library

[Katie!]

Alright, as an avid livejournal user, I'm extremely accustomed to nice, square, 100 x 100 avatars. I get all joyful whenever I find one I really love and switch to it on all my accounts, except on OB. The resolution of the current avatars is just so odd and since the layout is now vertical, I don't see the problem in giving us a bit of a nicer avatar resolution.

[James]

[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]

[Magus]

Part of me say yes go with some bigger avvies just to try and take away some of this wide space. The other part says it don't really matter since I'm used to wide forums. Edited June 3, 2010 by Rebellion

[James]

[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]

[Gavin]

[font="Tahoma"][size="2"]*Shrugs*

Honestly I don't really mind which way we go, although I think Rebellion has a point when he says that because the layout of the boards are wide, wider avatars make sense.

Perhaps a middle-ground of making the avatar size 150x100 ?[/size][/font]

[SunfallE]

[color="#4169E1"][font="Lucida Sans Unicode"]I wouldn't mind making more avatars in a new size. It would be a fun project to fill up the stash again. And to give Dessy [i]moar[/i] work. If we are going to go a bit bigger, is it possible to go wider too? Like 175-200 x 100-150... somewhere in that range. [/font][/color]

[Magus]

[quote name='James' date='03 June 2010 - 07:36 PM' timestamp='1275608203' post='694473']
[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]
[/quote]

"Hi face, meet palm"... I have a wide monitor (it's like it can be a mini flat screen tv... 19 x 19 / 20 x 20... Browser just as frickin long) and that thought didn't cross my mind at all.

But as I've stated it didn't really matter to me. I'm used to it

[Sangome]

I like the idea of 150 x 100, that way we don't lose the backlog of user-made 150 x 80 avatars, as well as accommodating the fact that a mass majority of avatars are 100 x 100. We have bigger sigs now, so, to me, it makes sense to expand the avatar size, as well.

[Katie!]

I wouldn't mind 150 x 100. It was just getting to be a real hassle trying to find something to fit the awkward 150 x 80 canvas.

[James]

[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]

[Katie!]

To be honest I hate the look of rectangle avatars, thus me asking for them to change. Of course, I'm just one person so it probably won't make any difference at all what I want.

[Magus]

[quote name='James' date='03 June 2010 - 08:09 PM' timestamp='1275610193' post='694481']
[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]
[/quote]
Yea..... , for some reason I tend to maximize everything that I open... It's become a habit.

Oh, I've grown fond of the rectangular look. While I don't mind the square look, I enjoy seeing cut-offs of faces/heads (how these masterminds that are great with photoshop or whatever program they use) of the avatars. True you can see everything with squares, but sometimes it looks better as a cut-off.... if that makes any sense lol.

[size=1]Decided to go back to Magus.. Rebellion is too, well Rebellious lol[/size] Edited June 4, 2010 by Magus

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Rabanastre']To be honest I hate the look of rectangle avatars, thus me asking for them to change. Of course, I'm just one person so it probably won't make any difference at all what I want.[/quote]
[font="Calibri"]To be fair, the current avatar restrictions are, I think, the [i]maximum[/i], and not the mandate; TheOtaku is 100-square, no more no less no freedom, so at present if you wanted a square avatar you could make it 80-square and be fine.

That said, I think 150-square would be a bit nicer, but since I'm more a proponent of landscape avatars (seems you can do more with them visually without clogging the sensory-input-thingummy), I wonder if the entire dimension limit could be expanded instead of just altered to accommodate the square format.

So what's the width of the poster-ID box on the left?

[/font][font="Calibri"][b]Edit: [/b]Personally I think 150-square would be rather garish; maybe try a 125-height limit first and see what width looks good with that?[/font] Edited June 4, 2010 by Allamorph

[James]

[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] Edited June 4, 2010 by James

[Katie!]

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.

[James]

[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]

[Katie!]

I still don't understand the point of the poll but whatever. Edited June 4, 2010 by Rabanastre

[The Spectacular Professor]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]I think restricting the size to 150x150 and keeping the old custom avatar set would be fine. As an added bonus, anyone wanting to submit new ones could be allowed to either use the old format or make a bigger square one.[/font]

[Gavin]

[font="Tahoma"][size="2"]Rectangular avatars have always been OB's thing, obviously if people want square ones they can do so within the limits of resolution offered. I still think 150x100 is fair as it allows people to use 100x100 square avatars while still keeping the board standard at rectangular style, that said the 150x150 profile pictures don't strike me as overly large either and would allow for a bit more individuality.

[strike]What are the new max signature image dimensions BTW Jeh ?[/strike]

Nevermind, found them. 600x200 for anyone wondering.[/size][/font] Edited June 4, 2010 by Gavin

[Petie]

[quote name='Allamorph' date='03 June 2010 - 08:34 PM' timestamp='1275611656' post='694487']
[font="Calibri"]To be fair, the current avatar restrictions are, I think, the [i]maximum[/i], and not the mandate; TheOtaku is 100-square, no more no less no freedom, so at present if you wanted a square avatar you could make it 80-square and be fine.[/font]
[/quote]
[color="#0000ff"]Bingo. The important thing to remember here is that we are talking about the [i]maximum[/i] dimensions. If we were to use 150x150, that means you can have up to a square at 150 pixels per side. However, if you wanted to keep your 150x80 avatar, that would still be allowed and it wouldn't be re-sized.

I realize the second half of this thread is regarding the avatar library but the simple solution there is to make custom avatars of varying sizes and let the user pick. Again, with a 150x150 max, you could make anything up to and including 150x150 and it would work across the site. Personally, I think this is the way to go because it allows for the most freedom in terms of uploads and also personal style. Like this, you don't need to pick rectangular or square because you get both.[/color]

[Allamorph]

[font="Calibri"]My earlier point still stands, I think. If we have enough room in the poster-ID box at the left of each post to justify expanding both dimensions, why would we only increase the height limit? I would think it only natural that people would like a greater width as well, and as has been noted by several people 150-square is totally possible so long as one of the dimensions is 150 and the other is greater.

As for the library . . . why not have both options available? The site library is built by user submissions, right? Why not let users submit to either a square or a rectangular format? And to avoid the question of what dimensions to allow, the square submissions would be whatever the maximum height is chosen to be, and the rectangular would be full dimensions.

[QUOTE=Rabanastre][/font]I still don't understand the point of the poll but whatever. [/QUOTE]
It's not asking what shape the allowable dimensions are. It's asking what the [i]site library[/i] standard should be. The old library held a bunch of 150x80 avatars because that was the maximum and no one submitted 80x80 stuff. Edited June 4, 2010 by Allamorph

[Katie!]

Well the poll description wasn't exactly that specific. "What shape should our new avatars be?" doesn't exactly scream "this is in reference to our library".

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Rabanastre']Well the poll description wasn't exactly that specific. "What shape should our new avatars be?" doesn't exactly scream "this is in reference to our library".[/quote]
[FONT=Calibri]It's different than "what shape should [i]your[/i] new avatars be". =P

But as long as we're all clear there's no need to quibble over what should have been said. That's my turf anyway.[/FONT]

[James]

[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]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='James'][font="Palatino Linotype"]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]
[font="Calibri"]...uh.

[quote name='James'][font="Palatino Linotype"]150x100 means 150 pixels wide and 100 pixels high.[/font][/quote]
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] Edited June 4, 2010 by Allamorph