85x85 or 70x70 and while we're at it, .png's too.

BlackDove · Post by **BlackDove** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 7:14 pm

I can't resize my avatar to 70x70 because to do it intelligently it takes a good program which this computer can't support, and moreover, I don't want to, because it's been artistically nice to have the 85x85 option.

Similarily, it'd be nice to be able to use .png's as avatars (with a size limit obviously), because they allow transparency while pretty much every other file form is inferior.

Oh and the poll is here because I can, and IIRC when I talked to KJ, he suggested I put it to a vote (albeit that was months ago).

Go.

NF · Post by NF » Thu Nov 17, 2005 7:18 pm

have gone for 85x85 png but just out of curiosity is there a technical reason why they should be limited to 70x70...?

Post by **Inquisitor** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 7:27 pm

No, we can bump the size a bit, I just dont want the avatars taking over the forum.

PNG's on the other hand represent certain technical challenges including compatbility issues.

We can increase the size, but PNG's are out (for now).

Kon · Post by **Kon** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:50 pm

Voted 85x85 with PNG's anyway, incase we are able to use them in the future. (I think the avatar I first used a year ago was a transparent PNG, and it worked fine.)

Padishar · Post by **Padishar** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:11 am

Since I can't personally code this myself to add PNG support, I couldn't vote to force someone else to do it..... Just doesn't seem right nor the highest of priorities anywho.

On the other hand it would be nice to have the option of larger avatars (even if it is just +15X15).

Post by **Inquisitor** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:21 am

I'll talk to Judd about increasing the size, I think that's easy and won't break the stylesheet.

PNG's may be non-negotiable.

Selistair · Post by **Selistair** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:35 am

Voted 85x85 but

Since I can't personally code this myself to add PNG support, I couldn't vote to force someone else to do it..... Just doesn't seem right nor the highest of priorities anywho.

Just think the size is nice, 85 isnt too big. I know there's 1 avatar that's a bit too big on this forum

I just think the monkey i did (look to your left) would been happier in 85

esd · Post by **esd** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:36 pm

Is it really worth modding the forum code just to allow a bit more flexibility in avatar transparency?

I don't think so.

Post by **Inquisitor** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:46 pm

What I don't want to happen is: We "vote" for something we can't actually implement.

From now on, can we discuss the feasibility of a TECHNICAL issue before voting on it? Size is one thing, size we have complete control over. PNG's are not something that we necessarily have immediate control over. So while it's nice that you want it, I may not be able to give it to you.

As soon as Judd sees this, if he hasn't already, we'll increase the size to 85.

PNG's get shelved until when and if we figure out how to do it, sorry.

BlackDove · Post by **BlackDove** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:48 pm

Works for me.

But when possible, whenever that may be, we should have it.

NF · Post by NF » Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:55 pm

What I don't want to happen is: We "vote" for something we can't actually implement.

darn thats the big 'Should we declare world peace?' vote out the window I had planned..

Post by **SSX-Killjoy** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:33 am

it is now 85pixels wide.. which of course breaks most of the imgs out there. Have fun fixing them all guys..

BlackDove · Post by **BlackDove** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:33 pm

I again see them as native, for example NF's, which is 127px in height.

BlueFlames · Post by **BlueFlames** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:36 pm

Any progress fixing the hack that lets us reduce the display size through our profile? I'm not interested in firing up my laptop and having people's icons take up half the damn screen.

The Shattered Star

85x85 or 70x70 and while we're at it, .png's too.

CHOOSE!

85x85 or 70x70 and while we're at it, .png's too.