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.
-

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[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

[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.
-

[Epistolary Richard]

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

[Kaiser of Arabia]

best I could do

[Tricky Lady]

And what about this one? (just trying)

[Kaiser of Arabia]

And what about this one? (just trying)

sweet thanks.

[TosaInu]

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

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 (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

[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.


-

[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



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

[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.