Url Avatar size

[TosaInu]

Hello,

This topic serves to decide about the byte limit of Url Avatars, please feel free to comment about the size in bytes.

Anything else is off-topic and should be discussed in another topic.

I'll add a poll to this after we had a chat.

The previous system allowed 10 kb for Url Avatars and also 10 kb for signature pictures. We should keep it dedicated to avoid confusion. Is 10 kb for the Url Avatar good, too less or too much?

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
10 K is fair. :yes:
-

[Byzantine Prince]

Why not keep the size the same as it is now? I like how they are all about TW I just want to see them being customized more.

[Shambles]

usualy in othere forums they restrict avitars to Like
65 by 65 pixels or 19.5 KB (which ever happens 1st)
Heres 1 i made for forums as most people accept it.

http://freespace.virgin.net/shambles.instalations/avit3.jpg Its 2849 bytes, so 10k is more than enough i think

[Tricky Lady]

Why not keep the size the same as it is now? I like how they are all about TW I just want to see them being customized more.

I agree. It's great to see personalised avatars, but it's even greater if they all can remain in the same TW 'spirit' as before. I refer to Barocca's, Myrddraal's, ichi's and Uesugi Kenshin's new avatars as very good examples of how it should be.
:bow:

[Kaiser of Arabia]

how about this, we find someone willing to make avatars into the Totalwar style, send em a pick we want, and using posts/warnings/whatevers we buy them ~;)
I claim a rommel avatar

[Byzantine Prince]

Or make your own. How hard is it? Just take the fram and place it on top of the Rommel pic. Then cut the sides and there you go. Lazy Kaiser.

[Myrddraal]

I agree, as I said in the other thread, its part of the unique feel to these forums that the avatars are all in the style of TW.

[AntiochusIII]

Lol, look at Myddraal's new avatar...

And I agree that the current policy is already good. Just make a few more... or, maybe, lower the post number restrictions.

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
Whatever the final decision, my Saladin shall stay with me. ~:pat:
-

[Epistolary Richard]

Wow, five posts and it was already off-topic. :wink: IMO 10k's fine and if you have the size restriction it'll allow for some very polished avatars. My opinion on 10k and no size limit is off-topic. :saint:

[Kaiser of Arabia]

http://img151.echo.cx/img151/8896/rommel9is.jpg
best I could do

[Tricky Lady]

And what about this one? (just trying)

http://home.scarlet.be/~cpel/rommel9is2.jpg

[TosaInu]

Wow, five posts and it was already off-topic. :wink:

Already before that actually, but doesn't matter too much.

-System avatars. There are over 3,000 and they're all about STW, MTW and RTW. The rare custom system avatars are small modifications or ones that come close in style.

-Url avatars. Initial idea was to drop the size, style and color requirements there. A 50*50 picture of a full plate knight would be good, but a 180*150 picture of some flowers or a tank would do as well. Photo, painted, doesn't matter. Am I right when I say we rather have it more uniformed?

It'll be possible to look at org wearing a uniform or individual casual cloths (just toggle the right boxes in your userCP). The uniform style is not going to change now, but what the Url avatar is going to be, is pretty much up to the people who're going to use it. How casual are your cloths going to be?

To raise some possibilities: the Url Avatar could remain restricted to one standard pixelsize for all (60*80 for example). And we could require that they're all square, include a frame, are painted and restricted to (a set of) theme(s). It's possible to host the images on one of the servers and have a few people managing it (users upload the pictures they want and the managers activate them for use when ok).

What is it going to be?

[Epistolary Richard]

I'd go for a standard pixel size, preferably in line with the existing portraits so the two blend in together. I mean, if they'll all look like Uesugi Kenshin's then there'd be no problem :happy: (I must admit that one's beginning to sell me on the idea of custom avatars) but practically I don't think that'll be the case.

Obviously, I'd like a painted/frame criteria as well, but I think that'd cause too much grief for the people overseeing it. Posters are used to size/kb limits - other restrictions are going to rankle.

Generally, it would be sad to see the existing trove of portraits fall into abeyance. For one, they're great. Two, as new users go straight to custom avatars it'll mean more and more system avatars will be left as the generic Briton, which will lessen the appeal for those who choose to disable to url avatars.

I think it's probably best if both avatars were allowed, but give the system avatars as much prominence in the registration/UCP as currently and leave custom avatars as something for which posters have to delve a little deeper (maybe preclude junior members). The ones that want them will have them, but hopefully the they'll think more about what's in-keeping with the org's style rather than just uploading their usual comedy jpg.

[The Wizard]

Hmm, if we're going with the TW thing, I'd like to know if I'd be able to use an avatar depicting something from the times of Napoleon? It even looks like RTW, since the character depicted is a member of one of Napoleon's Guard regiments and is wearing a Phrygian-style helmet. And besides, there is NTW to consider... ~;)

Seriously now, I'd personally prefer 15k... it gives me a little more leeway to make the avatar presentable. However, 10k is acceptable, for 56k users etc of course...



~Wiz

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I think 10k is pretty good, my 56k will be able to take it.

I think having restrictions on the theme of custom avatars would help keep the org's atmosphere, but I also think it would be nearly impossible to enforce. The only way I can think of making it workable would be to have people have to go through a moderator and have a set of guidlines given to each mod as to what fits. This may have to be done anyway so it could work very well, as long as the mods can handle the extra work.

Thanks Epistolary Richard, I figured it would go better with my screenname than my sohei pic, besides it is in color and the other is B&W pencil. I am proud to be a guinea pig.

[therother]

10KB is fair and should allow for some interesting avatars. I think it would be nice if avatars represented figures with at least some relation to the theme of the board. Not necessarily a strict one, so things like Rommel or Napoleonic era figures would be fine, but perhaps not a bunch of flowers! For a number of reasons I think it would be best to restrict the url avatars to those uploaded to the Org servers. If that were the case, I'd have no problem with newer members having them.

[Quietus]

I agree. It's great to see personalised avatars, but it's even greater if they all can remain in the same TW 'spirit' as before. I refer to Barocca's, Myrddraal's, ichi's and Uesugi Kenshin's new avatars as very good examples of how it should be.
:bow: At first, I was thinking uniformity is antipathetic to custom, but I do like that TW 'theme'. Not necessarily limited to STW, MTW or RTW, but extended to other theaters as well (i.e. Kaiser's 'Rommel' etc.). So I second TL and others on this.

Ten kb is enough I think, but I would disagree with the uniform pixel size. I think a fixed dimension is too limiting. Perhaps, lay down a maximum ceiling (i.e not to exceed 150x150, 100x100, 80x80 or whatever is decided) but the specific dimension I think should be up to the user. Other than that, I'm with the others.

:charge:

[Shambles]

50x70 Is a good sized avitar and this should stay the limit.
(prehaps both Minimum and maximum)
This would also keep the forum some what symetrical,
Also Larrger Avits could caus unforseen lag for 56k users as they Not only suffer from kb's but also amount of pixels

Also the TW Theme of the avitars Although keeping within the feeling of the web page, Will inevitably restrict the Design options Available to avit makers,
But, The tw theme is Good

So in conclusion Id say,
maximum and minimum avitar size to be 50 x 70
(to keep the web page symmetrical)
10kb Is More than enough,
and Some leway in design options of avitars,
(i.e Must have a frame "as posted above")

Just some input

ShambleS
:bow:

[TosaInu]

Question for the people who want a 'theme' for the custom avatars: are we talking about portrait like avatars (militairy and historical) and/or ones of such people with some background? So, an avatar of a tank is not ok, but Rommel standing in front of a tank is?

[KukriKhan]

Just my 2 cents as a regular member:

since url avatars are toggle-able via the userCP (and not 'on' by default) I see no particular reason to restrict the image content of those pictures. In other words: I vote "no theme requirement". Just size. They should be the same as the regular avatars, so as to not interfere with the display of the more important text content of posts....IMO.

[therother]

The signature picture allows a patron to display any picture they like. I supposed I'd like avatars to be, well, avatars – representative of the poster in some fashion, and at least to some extent relevant to the board, i.e. something at least loosely to do with history and/or warfare. It's a pretty wide topic.

As for the size, I'm happy with the current limits. It shouldn't take up much more space, if you turn off system avatars, than people using the full signature picture allowance of 200 pixels. Therefore it should only interfere with board formatting to the same extent.

[Epistolary Richard]

Talking theme, I'd prefer protraits - not necessarily connected with war (look at the MTW princesses for example) but ideally non-photographic in order to keep the 'look'.

That's not to say no photographs at all - Kaiser's Rommel (especially Tricky Lady's version of it) is quite nice at blending both photographic and artistic sensibilities in a way that a modern photograph wouldn't. There are various photoshop effects that can be used to 'stylise' a photo to make it less incongruous on these boards.

But...

When we're talking themes I think for the sanity of whoever gets lumbered with the monitoring job we have to be realistic in saying that these should be guidelines and not absolute requirements.

Say, we have a military/historical theme - what do we say to the person who wants to upload his Legolas avatar? There's a Middle Earth mod in progress in just the same way as a Napoleonic.

And what do we say to the person who wants Bart Simpson? Hey, we've got a Simpsons mod on the Forge right now! It's undeniably dead, but it's there. What about the guy who wants Han Solo or Yoda or, lord help us, Ja-Ja Binks?

Have guidelines, yes, say what's preferable in an avatar for these forums. But be realistic in that - within the bounds of legality and decency - you'll either have to allow people to use what they want or you'll have to put up with a lot of unnecessary grief.

That's one of my reasons for suggesting you just don't make a big deal about it, allow new joiners to pick a system avatar until they get used the boards and its atmosphere and they decide they want to hang around a while. Then when they go up to normal membership those that desperately want a custom avatar can upload one - and the ones who aren't too bothered will stick with the one they've already got.

I'm not saying, don't give them to junior members because they're second class citizens or anything like that, I'm just saying give them a chance to get familiar with the place first. In my opinion, it would be the best way to allow the maximum liberty with the minimum of hassle.

[Quietus]

If everyone agrees to the TW 'theme' then IMO it doesn't have to be historical or military in nature, rather cultural. Statues, shields, headdress, cartouche, vases, bookcover, buildings, tanks, paintings, it can be anything.

Personally, I have already have my custom avatar staked out. I'm only waiting for the agreed upon size so I can format it as such. ~:)

[Kaiser of Arabia]

And what about this one? (just trying)

http://home.scarlet.be/~cpel/rommel9is2.jpg
sweet thanks.

[Crazed Rabbit]

http://img183.echo.cx/img183/2228/knightavatarv63ij.png

This took 11kb. I think somewhere between 10 and 15 kb would be a good limit (maybe even, say...11kbs?)

Personally, I'd like to see the avatars retain some amount of 'Orgness', relating in history to some way, a pretty wide swath, methinks. And avoiding cartoonishness would be nice too.

Crazed Rabbit

[Quid]

I would like to see custum avatars but all uniform in size. Furthermore, a certain theme should be kept, i. e. TW theme.

10kb - 15kb seems to be a reasonable suggestion.

Quid

Ps: 500 posts in two and a half years; not bad at all ~:) !

[Craterus]

I would like to see custum avatars but all uniform in size. Furthermore, a certain theme should be kept, i. e. TW theme.

10kb - 15kb seems to be a reasonable suggestion.

Quid

Ps: 500 posts in two and a half years; not bad at all ~:) !

Hehe, I'm 815? (i don't know exact number, haven't checked recently) posts in 4 and a half weeks; not bad at all, lol ~D.

I think custom avatars would be good but with a TW theme (maybe people could put their username under the portrait, that sorta stuff) or with a portrait theme, and again patrons could attach their username or other suitable info.

EDIT: 820 posts in fact

[TosaInu]

Hello,

I'm too tired atm to really add something here, but it seems that there's some common and diverging ground here. We'll try to reach a compromise about this soon.

Crazed Rabbit that avatar is below 10 kb. My guess is that you have a different blocksize on your HardDisk from the servers.

[Epistolary Richard]

Just to make things clearer:

Common ground - from this and the other avatar thread at least
- Custom avatars are a good thing and should be allowed
- 10k is a suitable upper limit for them

Diverging ground - ie, members have expressed differing opinions
- Should there be a size restriction? If so, what?
- Should there be a theme to the avatars (TW, war, historical, portrait etc.)?
- Should the theme be a guideline or a requirement (ie, non-confirming avatars would be rejected)?
- Should they be available to all members (ie, instantly available upon registration)?

Some of these you might ultimately take a poll on, equally others you may consider that for technical, administrative or other reasons, need to be decided by staff members.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Crazed Rabbit that avatar is below 10 kb. My guess is that you have a different blocksize on your HardDisk from the servers.

Ah, right you are.

For the size, I would limit it to what we have already, or allow 74x74 squares. A square might break with the uniformity of the board, though. Not that that would be much of a problem, imho. Same kb limit for both sizes, though.

On requirements for getting one, I'd suggest a time and post limit. Some people, after all, can reach (for example) 500 posts very quickly, while others don't post as often. If you added a time prerequisite of, say, 3 to 6 months, that would mean that people with custom avatars have been here at least a while.

I'm not sure what a good post requirement would be, because of the aforementioned differences. Maybe 200-400 posts?

I guess it depends on what you want the avatars to represent: that you've been here a long time and have posted a lot, almost like a senior member (though not tied to senior member benefits). Or if you want people to have the option after a couple months of contributing. Personally, I'm leaning towards the end of a avatar representing more, but not being an exclusive club.

Crazed Rabbit

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
My 0.01 YTL (1 YTL = 0.73 US$, 0.56 €, 0.38 £, 78.33 ¥):


- Should there be a size restriction? If so, what?If it's dimensions what's meant by size, yes. No extremums; the custom avatars should have exactly the same dimensions with the firmware ones. Otherwise they may incite unintended meanings for the unfamiliar newbies and will harm the forum esthetically.

- Should there be a theme to the avatars (TW, war, historical, portrait etc.)?Human or fantastic humanlike characters (Tolkien, StarTrek etc.) should they be. Ie, "not a tank but a guy in front of a tank".

- Should the theme be a guideline or a requirement (ie, non-confirming avatars would be rejected)?Requirement in the above context.

- Should they be available to all members (ie, instantly available upon registration)?No.

:bow:
-

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I think custom avatars should be gained when someone becomes a member. Then they should know the system of the org and will be able to debate (argue really) in the backroom and explore the wonderful world of custom avatrs and increased pm box size.

[ichi]

This has been my avatar on other boards for a long time

http://www.totalwars.net/forum/images/avatars/127871285400dd4c772cc7.gif

nothing fancy but its only 2.81 kb, 81x82 i think.

10K is a reasonable upper limit, and I think Uesugi Kenshin has a nice size that we should consider as the upper limit.

We should not be limited to 'headshots' or 'busts' or portraits, many current board avatars do not meet that restriction.

But I do like the wooden frame.

ichi :bow:

[TosaInu]

Hello,

Pixel size. There are a few things to consider. Do we reject different dimension sizes, because they'll generate an unesthetical look, or do we reject different sizes because it could break the topic layout?

Uesugis avatar is 150 pixels wide and about 180 in height. Such an avatar will still display the topics like they should be when the screenresolution is set to 800*600 (a fair lower limit imho). Any picture will take up as much space as it needs, but can never exceed the 150*180 size. A 120*120 picture will look good, but also a 40*60 one. These max dimensions can be changed in the code.

It's also possible to agree about 1 fixed size and any picture will be displayed at that size (regardless of whether it actually is that big). This can result in distorted pictures. The limit can be 50*74 to comply with the firmware ones, but it can also be different. Right now, the firmware ones are displayed when the user has no Urlavatar, but we can change that to displaying a/several default UrlAvatar one, for example when we agree about a fixed dimension size different from 50*74.

As you can see, it will not be possible to mess up the topics look by displaying oversized pictures. It's just a matter of esthetical taste: all same size or flexible to some degree? That's point 1 to vote, we do the main issue first and agree about the subcases later: fixed or flexible.

The wooden/metal frame. It's looking neat and is a way to ensure the picture will always be clearly displayed on all skins (black, brown, blue). Not a requirement, but generally a good practice?

There seems to be some favour for a theme, but no clearity about what that's going to be. I think we have to take one step at a time here: allow photographic or require photos to be be made non-photographic by a psp filter. That will be poll 2.

I'll create those polls and take votes. The poll will close after 2 days.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I just had an epiphany, a very pathetic and sad little epiphany, but here we go: In my opinion avatar size does not matter all that much, because there are rarely more than 2-3 avatars on the screen at once and with many posts that goes down to only one. This will not affect the aesthetics in a major way IMO. Yeah, that may not be an epiphany, but whatever close enough...

[Suraknar]

Well, I think in the present days of Higher Speed Internet, and a Majority of people sporting DSL and Cable connections we could raise a bit the limits to reflect the modern state of the Forums here.

(I am very aware that there are still people using Dial Up, and it is not meant as a demeanor, High Speed connections are not available everywhere or resonably affordable everywhere yet either).

I would tend to say 40k as a Limit, mainly because of the Signature.

I don't think an Avatar is a problem of 10k.

But with all the new features present to us(like many wonderfull Graphics Software of later years, Animated Gifs etc etc), with all the talented people that the modding sections attract, to come in and limit their expression is not a means to invite people in this fine place.

To be honest here, I was never aware of the limits in signature files, and the Avatar I always considered part of the General Theme here and so the restrain of choice never bothered me.

But recently I have been made aware of the Limits on the Signature, and to say the least I was surprised that there was one to begin with, I mean, I can understand if someone has a 200k Signarture file and they spam all over the place it can cause some bandwidth issues specially when more people read the threads, and to say nothing of our Dial up Users.

But on the other hand, we are all so used to the "apparent" freedom the Internet does offer in late years, we are also used to be Spammed with Pop Ups (I use a blocker), and Millions of Pictures, and Animated Content in all the Ubber Dupper new and verry Commercially inclined Websites, and to feel constrained down to 10K of personnal expression in a place which is suposed to give freedom peace and quiet of the Chaotic Internet of today, is somewhat frustrating.

Don't take me wrong, I am a graphics artist, I could make a new Signature in a matter of minutes, the one I have now however was made by a 75 year old friend that learned to use a Coputer and Graphics Software all by himself, at the site it is linked to, and I am just proud for his accomplishment, and have it there in most Forums sites that I register.

If it really offends however please tell me in an official manner and I will re-evaluate to accomodate appropriatelly.

Thank you

[KukriKhan]

Appreciate your input. At 37K, your current sig would meet your suggested limit of 40K.

To meet our current standard (which I must officially request you do, for now - as we have imposed it on the entire org membership, and they have complied), you would lose the (admittedly cool) waving flag:

https://jimcee.homestead.com/files/dBanner2.jpg

That image comes in under 10KB, with no appreciable loss of quality, save the flag-waving. As a graphic artist, I'm certain you can do better than I.

[Suraknar]

Well,

Yes I can do good enough I think...But,

It will no longer be the work of my friend if I changed it otherwise, and there is no point Using it in that case to render hommage to his work.

On the Other hand, I understand the rules here, and as a member of quite some time now since Shogun Total War, I have loved this place.

So for now, I will justn (reluctantly) remove it all together, untill the rules are amended and this site comes up to present-day higher speed and content Internet standards.

[KukriKhan]

:bow:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but here goes:

No animated gifs.

That's my personal opinion, but I think that they make things seem to flashy, too sugar-coated. Even if the gif is clever, or entertaining, you can only stand that "stick-figure-attacking-the-wall" gif so many times.

I guess what it boils down to is that animated gifs could allow for a lot of abuse and cheapen the forum. If they are allowed and widely used, I might turn off the avatars. But then I lose out on the other good avatars some people may have.

Just my two cents. :book:

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Suranakar there are still people using the org on dial up. I have admittedly excellent dial up that gets 52k consistently, but back before the sig rules were put in place I had long load times on many of the threads where people had huge sigs. It will be even worse if there were lax avatar rules. 10k is a good amount of room, 15k or some othe near amount is good as well, however I do not think it should be much larger. My computer would die and anybody else still trapped in the dial up age for whatever reason will suffer the same fate.

[Epistolary Richard]

As a dial-up user who struggles to get 52k myself, I whole-heartedly emphasise, however signatures are not really the matter for debate at the moment.

To Alexander the Pretty Good I agree completely - animated gifs are extremely annoying.


But with all the new features present to us(like many wonderfull Graphics Software of later years, Animated Gifs etc etc), with all the talented people that the modding sections attract, to come in and limit their expression is not a means to invite people in this fine place.

I don't really see this discussion about custom avatars as revolving around limitation of expression. A forum that has no avatars doesn't seem to limit expression, a forum that only has system avatars doesn't seem to limit expression. This forum has entire boards set aside for off-topic talk so people can do things like post pieces of artwork for others to admire.


To be honest here, I was never aware of the limits in signature files
It's this that particularly bothers me. If someone who's obviously willing to be reasonable and abide by forum rules such as Suraknar can be infringing them without realising it, then something's wrong. I know this is moving even further off-topic than before and I can start a new thread if people prefer - but even if a size-check isn't possible before signatures are uploaded, is it at least possible to put the rules for signatures on the same page as people edit their signatures?

[Suraknar]

Yes I would have to agree here, with the Avatar and Signature combo not being very explicit as per the rules.

As for the Expression, well, expressing ones work in dedicated forums, as a measure for our Dial up Users to be informed about is good.

Yet, (and forgive me if I am not comming though fully here, English no being my first language), there is a distinction between showing one's work in a specific place and "wearing" ones work everywhere they go.

However, I am one that considers that the Quality of a Community is measured by the quality of it's members, and if these members use dial up, then it becomes the responsibility of the community to make some compromises in order to offer equal opportunity of expression to everyone of its members.

As such, I think this place, in spite of what is being vehiculated as of some time now, is the picacle of Quality of the complete Total War Community. And quality has nothing to do with how popular or quantity of members are actually visiting here.

And in that common interest to maintain this quality, I am more than willing to compromise.

So whatever the collective results maybe in terms of Avatars and ignatures turn out to be, then that is what I shall respect aswell.

Cheers!