Author Topic: Avatar discussion revisited  (Read 6329 times)

Offline Serack

  • Special Collections Division
  • Posty McPostington
  • ****
  • Posts: 7745
  • WoJ Rock Star!
    • View Profile
Avatar discussion revisited
« on: December 16, 2010, 10:34:45 PM »
The forum auto-suggested that I start a new topic rather than continuing the old one.

Actually, we prefer for folks to use the standard 100x100 icon size, with 125x125 being the upper limit.

I saw Shecky say earlier today that 100x100 was necessary, and I remembered the above post which I have quoted to people before.  Now it's officially in the forum rules:

Forum Rules and Precepts. Please read.
Quote
Avatars:
--Personalized avatars must avoid touchy topics.
--Please keep avatars to a size  not to exceed 100 x 100 pixels.

Of course Blaze's avatar (a great one that IMO is of a great size but I have a rather high resolution so I might not be the best judge) beside that rule is 106×159.


You've (the mod crew) written it down now, but I suggest you massage the wording a little...
DF WoJ Compilation
Green is my curator voice.
Name dropping "Serack" in a post /will/ draw my attention to it

*gnaws on the collar of his special issue Beta Foo long-sleeved jacket*

Offline Blaze

  • Cloak maker to Wizards.
  • Seriously?
  • ***
  • Posts: 13513
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Avatar discussion revisited
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2010, 01:21:51 AM »
You know...  I had no idea what size my avatar was in terms of pixels...  I use it everywhere and it is a standard photobucket reduction!

I guess I'd better come into compliance!



« Last Edit: December 17, 2010, 01:59:00 AM by Blaze »
Chi pò, non vò; chi vò, non pò; chi sà, non fà; chi fà, non sà; e così, male il mondo va.

Offline Shecky

  • Bartender
  • O. M. G.
  • ****
  • Posts: 34672
  • Feh.
    • View Profile
Re: Avatar discussion revisited
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2010, 01:36:48 AM »
The avatar guidelines are really just guidelines; 100x100 is a good standard, while 125x125 apparently is the top end of fitting the geometry of the page, so we ask that erring on the side of caution be the standard approach. That being said, it really messes up page navigation for a lot of our members when avatars are bigger than that, so the "guidelines" are actually pretty necessary in the final tally. We're all about making it as universally accessible and non-annoying as we reasonably can without turning the place into blandsauce.
Official forum rules and precepts; please read: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23096.0.html

Quote from: Stanton Infeld
Well, if you couldn't do that with your bulls***, Leonard, I suspect the lad's impervious.

Offline Blaze

  • Cloak maker to Wizards.
  • Seriously?
  • ***
  • Posts: 13513
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Avatar discussion revisited
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2010, 03:09:41 AM »
So, Serack, since you brought it up... want me to resize your avatar for you?

The set size is for compatibility  with screen fit and to prevent scrolling.    By having a standard size, everyone will know ahead of time, and if they squeak a little over, that is not the same as attempting a honking big avatar!
« Last Edit: December 17, 2010, 03:33:57 AM by Blaze »
Chi pò, non vò; chi vò, non pò; chi sà, non fà; chi fà, non sà; e così, male il mondo va.

Offline Serack

  • Special Collections Division
  • Posty McPostington
  • ****
  • Posts: 7745
  • WoJ Rock Star!
    • View Profile
Re: Avatar discussion revisited
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2010, 11:01:19 AM »
So, Serack, since you brought it up... want me to resize your avatar for you?

The set size is for compatibility  with screen fit and to prevent scrolling.    By having a standard size, everyone will know ahead of time, and if they squeak a little over, that is not the same as attempting a honking big avatar!

I just adjusted my screen resolution to 800x600 and checked the locations of the post margins and they are the same in the x direction for posts with avatars of 100 and 125 pixels so apparently Shecky has it right for the x direction.  I'm assuming that posts of only a couple few lines might have excess dead space in the Y direction, although the smaller the screen resolution, the more lines are needed to accommodate for the same amount of text.  Honestly, I had a dickens of a time getting my old fluffy avatar pared down below what I had it at at somewhere around 180x160 and I loved it dearly but I ditched it shortly after I saw the post I quoted in my OP for a slightly larger version of my current avatar.  Yesterday when I saw the newly posted rules, I figured out how to use Photobucket to resize the avatar to it's current size, which at 1920x2000 is incredibly diminutive so I was hoping I'd be in the clear.

But apparently I'll need to pare it down farther.  I've only got 10 min to pack my lunch and leave for work though and they are kinda twitchy about photo control so I'm going to have to wait until I get back home to edit it down again on a photo sharing site.
DF WoJ Compilation
Green is my curator voice.
Name dropping "Serack" in a post /will/ draw my attention to it

*gnaws on the collar of his special issue Beta Foo long-sleeved jacket*

Offline Shecky

  • Bartender
  • O. M. G.
  • ****
  • Posts: 34672
  • Feh.
    • View Profile
Re: Avatar discussion revisited
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2010, 11:35:35 AM »
I just adjusted my screen resolution to 800x600 and checked the locations of the post margins and they are the same in the x direction for posts with avatars of 100 and 125 pixels so apparently Shecky has it right for the x direction.  I'm assuming that posts of only a couple few lines might have excess dead space in the Y direction, although the smaller the screen resolution, the more lines are needed to accommodate for the same amount of text.  Honestly, I had a dickens of a time getting my old fluffy avatar pared down below what I had it at at somewhere around 180x160 and I loved it dearly but I ditched it shortly after I saw the post I quoted in my OP for a slightly larger version of my current avatar.  Yesterday when I saw the newly posted rules, I figured out how to use Photobucket to resize the avatar to it's current size, which at 1920x2000 is incredibly diminutive so I was hoping I'd be in the clear.

But apparently I'll need to pare it down farther.  I've only got 10 min to pack my lunch and leave for work though and they are kinda twitchy about photo control so I'm going to have to wait until I get back home to edit it down again on a photo sharing site.

Yeah, we're trying to accommodate those poor souls who still have low-res monitors. :D
Official forum rules and precepts; please read: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23096.0.html

Quote from: Stanton Infeld
Well, if you couldn't do that with your bulls***, Leonard, I suspect the lad's impervious.

Offline Myyrdn Eopia

  • Bartender
  • Posty McPostington
  • ****
  • Posts: 2903
  • Twitter: @myyrdneopia
    • View Profile
    • Ranting Dragon SF/F News and Reviews
Re: Avatar discussion revisited
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2010, 01:54:26 PM »
Yeah, we're trying to accommodate those poor souls who still have low-res monitors. :D

Hush.

Offline Starbeam

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 5722
  • Twitter: @stellamortis
    • View Profile
    • Stella Mortis
Re: Avatar discussion revisited
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2010, 02:07:13 PM »
Yesterday when I saw the newly posted rules, I figured out how to use Photobucket to resize the avatar to it's current size, which at 1920x2000 is incredibly diminutive so I was hoping I'd be in the clear.
This kinda thing is one very cool thing with Flickr.  There's an option to view all sizes of a photo, and it goes from original to avatar--automatic sizing.  Did that with Whingnut's avatar--original size is something like massiveomghuge.  Avatar size is as close to 100x100 it can get without changing the scale.
"You must stay drunk on writing so reality cannot destroy you." Ray Bradbury

Offline whingnut

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 732
  • @RobJDurand
    • View Profile
Re: Avatar discussion revisited
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2010, 09:34:21 PM »
I also have another version I did myself using Paint in windows. I will admit I had to fiddle with it for about 10 minutes to get it right but it really wasn't all that hard.
"Did not see some of it coming AT ALL--crazy ramifications for Dresdenverse" - Anne Sowards 08/03/12 on Twitter regarding Cold Days

Offline Electric MacButters

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 614
    • View Profile
Re: Avatar discussion revisited
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2010, 11:46:25 PM »
Is there any way to just upload an image from my hard drive?  I try to avoid all those social network type sites (fewer Nigerian princes that way.)
Okay, I flipped the breaker, pulled the fuses, and blew up the transformer.

Why are my lights still on?
Henceforth, therefore, to be known as Electric MacButters?
Chairman of the Amanda Beckett Society

Offline Shecky

  • Bartender
  • O. M. G.
  • ****
  • Posts: 34672
  • Feh.
    • View Profile
Re: Avatar discussion revisited
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2010, 12:03:47 AM »
Is there any way to just upload an image from my hard drive?  I try to avoid all those social network type sites (fewer Nigerian princes that way.)

Photosharing isn't social-networking. Try Photobucket. Easy to set up, easy to link.
Official forum rules and precepts; please read: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23096.0.html

Quote from: Stanton Infeld
Well, if you couldn't do that with your bulls***, Leonard, I suspect the lad's impervious.

Offline Myyrdn Eopia

  • Bartender
  • Posty McPostington
  • ****
  • Posts: 2903
  • Twitter: @myyrdneopia
    • View Profile
    • Ranting Dragon SF/F News and Reviews
Re: Avatar discussion revisited
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2010, 01:21:38 AM »
Photosharing isn't social-networking. Try Photobucket. Easy to set up, easy to link.

Used to be easier.   [/rant against photobutcket's "better" "updates"]

Offline Shecky

  • Bartender
  • O. M. G.
  • ****
  • Posts: 34672
  • Feh.
    • View Profile
Re: Avatar discussion revisited
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2010, 01:31:18 AM »
Used to be easier.   [/rant against photobutcket's "better" "updates"]

Yeah, those annoy me, too.
Official forum rules and precepts; please read: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23096.0.html

Quote from: Stanton Infeld
Well, if you couldn't do that with your bulls***, Leonard, I suspect the lad's impervious.

Offline Serack

  • Special Collections Division
  • Posty McPostington
  • ****
  • Posts: 7745
  • WoJ Rock Star!
    • View Profile
Re: Avatar discussion revisited
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2010, 02:20:31 AM »
test
DF WoJ Compilation
Green is my curator voice.
Name dropping "Serack" in a post /will/ draw my attention to it

*gnaws on the collar of his special issue Beta Foo long-sleeved jacket*

Offline Serack

  • Special Collections Division
  • Posty McPostington
  • ****
  • Posts: 7745
  • WoJ Rock Star!
    • View Profile
Re: Avatar discussion revisited
« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2010, 02:22:54 AM »
very odd.  Does the avatar show up as 100x100 for everyone else?  I suspect it's cashed somewhere on my computer as the 125x125 version because photobucket is saying it's 100x100 now but it's not showing up on the forums as such for me.
DF WoJ Compilation
Green is my curator voice.
Name dropping "Serack" in a post /will/ draw my attention to it

*gnaws on the collar of his special issue Beta Foo long-sleeved jacket*