New Avatar Library

[James]

[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]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='James'][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][/quote]
[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]

[Kei]

[color="#000080"][size="1"]Regarding the little blurb that Al mentioned before, I was eyeballing the avatar space we have now and it looks like it has a maximum of 250 pixels. If we were to increase the width and want set a new landscape standard, 200x125 may make a nice base. I think it gives a nice little letterbox look. It also still lets people use the old 150x80 library (if and when we get that back) and allows for a slightly wider dimension array.[/size][/color]

[James]

[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] Edited June 4, 2010 by James

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]Anyone besides me think overly large avatars are tacky and pointless? I find 100x100 and 150x80 to be plenty big enough and there are very few times when I find myself wishing for more space when I make avatars. I think 150x150 would be pushing it and I wouldn't want to see bigger.

I say we go with 150x100 so that our current avatar library would fit the max width and the more common 100x100 size would fit the max height.[/color]

[Katie!]

But what about avatars that are already 150 x 150 that I want to use? or what if I want to use some 195 x 195 avatars that I've saved? If I shrink them down to 150 x 150, the 195 ones are going to lose a lot of details compared to if it was only shrunken down to 150. And don't say to crop it to 150 x 100. In case that wasn't obvious, I don't want to deal with ugly rectangular avatars. Fact of the matter is, there are avatars out there larger than 150 x 150 and if I'm sure I'm not the only one that wants to shrink it to fit 100 x 100 and lose a lot of the avatar.

[James]

[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]

[Allamorph]

[font="Calibri"]James is right, and with just two or three people arguing back and forth about what they want, we're not really going to get all that big of an opinion spread here. But there is one thing I'd like to point out.[/font]

[QUOTE=Citric]what about avatars that are already 150 x 150 that [b]I want[/b] to use? or what if [b]I want[/b] to use some 195 x 195 avatars that I've saved?[/QUOTE]
[font="Calibri"]At the risk of insulting you, this phrasing is starting to sound like an undisciplined eight year old. We also went down that road when we were talking about signature-banner size restrictions a couple of years ago. No restrictions will make things rather ugly rather fast, but at the same time there isn't anything really against a dimensional swell. So, what if you want to use some 195-square? Well then we're all sorry for you, but you won't be able to.

Now, I did initially try to look at a ___x150 size that would allow the use of 150-square avatars, but Kei tested it and said it looked like the width that looked good with it would far exceed the width available right now. That's why I dropped back to ___x125, and she said 200X125 would work. Granted, you'd still have to resize your 150-squares, but it would be less of a shrink than before.

As for Des,[/font]

[quote name='Desbreko'][color="#4b0082"]Anyone besides me think overly large avatars are tacky and pointless? I find 100x100 and 150x80 to be plenty big enough and there are very few times when I find myself wishing for more space when I make avatars.[/color][/quote]
[font="Calibri"]That argument [i]also[/i] came up in the signature-banner discussion. (I know; I was one of the ones throwing it.) To wit, the basic points of each side were "why can't we have what we want?" and "why do we need anything bigger?", and the result was a middle ground for both: an increase in size allowances that still didn't broach "eyesore".

And now again we've increased the banner size restrictions. I agree that too much of an increase would be ugly (as I said, I personally find 150-square to be garish), but I don't see a reason why we can't test out a dimensional bump.

Unless [i]I[/i] need to remind [i]you[/i] guys of the definition of 'compromise'. ^ ^[/font] Edited June 4, 2010 by Allamorph

[Cat]

[quote name='Desbreko' date='04 June 2010 - 06:04 AM' timestamp='1275656661' post='694537']
[color=#4B0082]Anyone besides me think overly large avatars are tacky and pointless? I find 100x100 and 150x80 to be plenty big enough and there are very few times when I find myself wishing for more space when I make avatars. I think 150x150 would be pushing it and I wouldn't want to see bigger.

I say we go with 150x100 so that our current avatar library would fit the max width and the more common 100x100 size would fit the max height.[/color]
[/quote]

I have to agree with Desbreko. I'm not a fan of large avatars. In some cases its like making a mini banner if you get to large. I also like the measurements Desbreko stated. This way the vast majority of avatars can be used. It also keeps it more like an avatar then a banner.

Another concern I have when the avatars increasing in height with the new banner size wouldn't the forum start looking like its cluttered? By going larger it might be overkill.

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Calibri]One-line test to look at left-bar space.[/FONT]

[Katie!]

[quote name='Allamorph' date='04 June 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1275678090' post='694570'][font="Calibri"]At the risk of insulting you, this phrasing is starting to sound like an undisciplined eight year old. We also went down that road when we were talking about signature-banner size restrictions a couple of years ago. No restrictions will make things rather ugly rather fast, but at the same time there isn't anything really against a dimensional swell. So, what if you want to use some 195-square? Well then we're all sorry for you, but you won't be able to.

Now, I did initially try to look at a ___x150 size that would allow the use of 150-square avatars, but Kei tested it and said it looked like the width that looked good with it would far exceed the width available right now. That's why I dropped back to ___x125, and she said 200X125 would work. Granted, you'd still have to resize your 150-squares, but it would be less of a shrink than before.[/font][/quote]

Way to twist my words around. I never said that I wanted to use the 195 squares as is, I was saying that if I wanted to [b]shrink those 195 squares down[/b], 100 x 100 would lose a lot of that detailing. Not once did I say that I wanted to keep the 195 x 195 the same size. And it doesn't sound like you're sorry at all.

Also, please excuse my undisciplined 8 year old self. She's just so hard to control. Edited June 4, 2010 by Citric

[Allamorph]

[font="Calibri"]So that's how MultiQuote works. I like it.

[quote name='Cat']Another concern I have when the avatars increasing in height with the new banner size wouldn't the forum start looking like its cluttered? By going larger it might be overkill.[/quote]
That's pretty much what was going through my head as well. But as long as the [u]width[/u] of the poster-ID bar at the left doesn't change, I don't think clutter will be much of an issue. Vertically there should always be enough space to accommodate, given the sizes of most signatures.

[quote name='Citric']And it doesn't sound like you're sorry at all.[/quote]
Phrase was "at the risk", bucko. I'd advise you let it go unless you want the thread to devolve to pointless snipping, especially since we're lobbying for basically the same side.

I need to start remembering to put FONT end tags before people's quotes so everything isn't in Calibri. =P
[/font] Edited June 4, 2010 by Allamorph

[Horendithas]

[color="#4B0082"][font="Arial"]I prefer the landscape sizing and have voted to that effect. I don't see a problem with increasing the size a little bit since the signatures did get a bump in size already. I'd probably go with 175 x 100 or 200 x 110. Or rather something that is an increase, but not too much of one. [/font][/color]

[Magus]

I had to remove my vote since I didn't fully read everything, and didn't catch everything.... I'm probably off here as well lol (As proof earlier about the browser setting you can see I'm a little slow Don't judge me) So this 150x_____ debate is about the library stock of avvies correct or is it avatar sizes in general? If it's the library, I have no preference. I like them the way they are, but if people want to try to aim for adding in some bigger avatars that's fine by me as well. I'd probably attempt to sticking with the standard size though... ("IF" I get any better with photoshop that is lol)

Avatars in general.. Like I said before, I've grown very fond of the landscape look. Just seems like you can fit more into it without losing much. (I'm a noobie in that department so don't mind me there)

[strike]But if it were up to me, James, seeing how it looks like neither side can really come to an agreement, I'd say "forget" (harsher word) them and try to meet somewhere in the middle.[/strike] (need a devilish grin)

[Desbreko]

[quote name='Citric' date='04 June 2010 - 06:20 AM' timestamp='1275657640' post='694539']
But what about avatars that are already 150 x 150 that I want to use? or what if I want to use some 195 x 195 avatars that I've saved? If I shrink them down to 150 x 150, the 195 ones are going to lose a lot of details compared to if it was only shrunken down to 150. And don't say to crop it to 150 x 100. In case that wasn't obvious, I don't want to deal with ugly rectangular avatars. Fact of the matter is, there are avatars out there larger than 150 x 150 and if I'm sure I'm not the only one that wants to shrink it to fit 100 x 100 and lose a lot of the avatar.
[/quote]
[color=#4B0082]Most of the time, you're already losing a ton of detail by downscaling and cropping images to 150x150 or 200x200 or whatever to make them into avatars. But that's not important because they're avatars, not grand works of art. The whole point of an avatar is to have a small icon that represents you, along with your username. As long as whatever's in it is easily recognizable, it serves its purpose. If you want something big and fancy with meticulous amounts of detail, you've already got a large 600x200 banner to work with. Thus why I say overly large avatars are pointless.

The second reason I don't want to increase the max width is that, while yes, there's more room in the postbit, it looks ugly to have avatars jammed right up against the borders with barely any padding. The current width matches up nicely with the width of the text info below it, creating a fairly uniform column of information. If you raise the dimensions too big, the avatars will look disproportionately large compared to the rest of the postbit. Thus why I say overly large avatars are tacky.

On the subject of whether avatars in the site's library should be square or rectangular, I don't see any problem with having both as long as we pick two uniform sizes. There are some images that simply look better in the rectangular format and some that look better in square. Allowing both will only provide more high quality avatars.[/color]

[Katie!]

[quote name='Allamorph' date='04 June 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1275680573' post='694586']
[font="Calibri"]Phrase was "at the risk", bucko. I'd advise you let it go unless you want the thread to devolve to pointless snipping, especially since we're lobbying for basically the same side.[/font][/quote]

I don't understand why you felt the need to go to the point of "at the risk of". It shouldn't have had to go there at all. I wasn't trying to sound like an undisciplined 8 year old, despite what you think, I was simply trying to make an example. I could have been replaced with anyone but when I was typing it on my BlackBerry I wasn't really thinking of how I would come across. Since we're basically on the same side, I don't understand why you had to target me but whatever. It's irrelevant at this point.

I don't see what else there is left to discuss at this point. There's a lot of numbers but I think we're between 150 x 100 or 150 x 150. I'm preferable to 150 x 150, obviously, and I think that could cater to more options for custom rectangular avatars.

[James]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]Yeah, I'm comfortable with 150x150. It makes sense. We keep our current width (we don't really need to increase width because we now have a vertical postbit - so our avatars already appear wider than they might have on the previous version). But now we can add extra height so that people can use 150x150 squares as well. I think this is a reasonable compromise (and as has been mentioned, we already increased the size of our signature images quite significantly - so this will already give people more real estate to use for personalization).

The only issue remaining is the actual physical setup of the library on this software, which we are still investigating. If at all possible we want to try to split the landscape and square avatars into two distinct groups, rather than mash them all together. So hopefully there will be an outcome on that soon.

Thanks for your feedback, everyone.
[/font]

[Katie!]

Would there still be the categories under those two groups? Better worded; would there be subcategories to the two sizes?

[James]

[quote name='Citric' date='05 June 2010 - 12:26 PM' timestamp='1275701173' post='694615']
Would there still be the categories under those two groups? Better worded; would there be subcategories to the two sizes?
[/quote]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]I'm not sure if we can do that - I hope so.[/font]

[Katie!]

Well, I know that you're having some issues bringing over all the old avatars so maybe we should tackle that first. But yeah, it would be nice to have that.

[Gavin]

[quote name='Desbreko' date='05 June 2010 - 01:24 AM' timestamp='1275697450' post='694603']
[color=#4B0082]The second reason I don't want to increase the max width is that, while yes, there's more room in the postbit, it looks ugly to have avatars jammed right up against the borders with barely any padding. The current width matches up nicely with the width of the text info below it, creating a fairly uniform column of information. If you raise the dimensions too big, the avatars will look disproportionately large compared to the rest of the postbit. Thus why I say overly large avatars are tacky.

On the subject of whether avatars in the site's library should be square or rectangular, I don't see any problem with having both as long as we pick two uniform sizes. There are some images that simply look better in the rectangular format and some that look better in square. Allowing both will only provide more high quality avatars.[/color]
[/quote]

[font="Tahoma"][size="2"]Wisdom above.[/size][/font]

[Persona]

[font="Garamond"][size="2"][color="#708090"]As stated from previous post, the idea of just having a mixture would be good in general. So I'd vote for both if I could, it's simple and doesn't create a hassle. We can also keep the old custom avatar galleries too, without having to discard them. Plus even if they are discarded, I'm sure the members would love to create new submissions.[/color][/size][/font]

[Shy]

I like the rectangular avatars. I feel like they're a pleasant throwback to a simpler time (version.) I don't see why both can't co-exist in harmony, but I do suspect if you give people the option of using a full 150x150 they are going to make a point of using it.

-Shy

[Selene Shri]

[font="Tahoma"][color="#000000"]I like the rectangular ones. oO If you just make them 150x100 then people can have the rectangle or they can use 100x100 that a lot of sites post. That's what I would do. ^^[/color][/font]

[Desbreko]

[quote name='Shy' date='05 June 2010 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1275782208' post='694680']
I like the rectangular avatars. I feel like they're a pleasant throwback to a simpler time (version.)[/quote]
[color=#4B0082]We should totally go back to 50x50 avatars. [/color]