Bleh, I know we've talked about this before. But are we ever going to have bigger avatars, maybe a little bit bigger. Come to a compromise? 120x120 looks pretty decent.

Originally Posted by Tubz

120x120 looks pretty decent.

If enormous.

It's just vast. Too vast. 50x50 is fine.

Seriously, though, what's the point? 48x48 is still big enough to show most things, and it translates really well into MSN avatars. Just be thankful avatars aren't 32x32 and the only options available being random tiles from JJ2 tilesets.

64x64 is the standard avatar size of the INTERNETZ.

Hmm, that's totally reasonable. I can barely see my avatar, lol.

Originally Posted by sers^^

It's just vast. Too vast. 50x50 is fine.

And you totally messed up the chic, what did you use....Paint?...to do that?

He just took your avatar and changed the height and width with html, which you could've noticed when you quoted him. As for your complaint about avatars being too small, just be happy you're allowed to have one. Forgetting about that long battle to get them in the first place already?

OOuu come on it's good enough!!!!48x48 !!!

I must've missed that fight, Blur. Real spectator heaven... ;P

I also think that 48x48 is ok, but 50x50 wouldn't hurt either. Nothing above 55x55 though.

Originally Posted by Tubz

And you totally messed up the chic, what did you use....Paint?...to do that?

Any program would do that if it's not a vector image. Paint or Photoshop, it wouldn't make any difference. So, a bigger avatar would do you no good whatsoever.

Unless he resized that from a larger image. Which seems likely.

Every time you reject a good idea, a 12-year-old boy gets molested by one of his male classmates.

I think I campaigned for 50x50 (as that's what dA uses, and it's also a nice size to resize my 100x100 ones for yahoo/msn/lj to), but apparently 48x48 is just as common. That makes it 3 sets of images for avatars then.

I like them being small, anyway. It's a lot nicer than the great big signature images people used to have, especially when you have a tempermental 48k-on-a-good-day dialup connection.

I think we wanted to keep them small and a constant size because we considered them user "icons" rather than user "pictures". If there is a lot of demand for larger ones though, we could consider it.

Another possibility might be to keep the avatars the same but also enable profile pictures (large images you can put in your profile).

Ok, you can start a stickied topic on that Link...

I'm against it. In another forum that one dude has an avatar of a car he likes, which is pretty big, and it messes up the whole page's layout.

48x48 is fine.

I'm for profile pics though.

Originally Posted by Unknown Rabbit

48x48 is still big enough to show most things, and it translates really well into MSN avatars.

*takes back the CRACK Violet stole from him*

MSN display pictures are actually 96x96. Furcadia uses 95x95.

I think 96x96 would be nice, but of course with that size change there would also have to be a filesize change....

And I don't exactly like how it converts pics to GIF format....

So I propose off site avatar hosting at 96x96. That way I can have a nicely compressed PNG format image instead of crappy GIF.

PNG > ALL

Originally Posted by Hazel-rah

MSN display pictures are actually 96x96.

100x100.

I propose 3000x3000. That way, it's a simple, uniform three to four page-downs to scroll past every avatar.

Alternatively, I think it would be neat if we could customize the entire cell left of our post, like a signature. Only the cell should stay the same size and the images should rescale to fit that size if the cell changes in size (e.g. if you make the window smaller).

I propose 64x64 but a ban on signature images.

I understood that one.

Originally Posted by Hazel-rah

MSN display pictures are actually 96x96.

Exactly. A 2:1 ratio is rather convinient.

The avatars are WAY TOO SMALL. As long as it isn't bigger than 100 by 100, I'm fine. But COME ON!!! What are we supposed to be able to do in that TINY space?

Originally Posted by Kaine Jackrabbi

... But COME ON!!! What are we supposed to be able to do in that TINY space?

Use your imagination.

Originally Posted by Kaine Jackrabbi

What are we supposed to be able to do in that TINY space?

Ironically, you only used half of it.

Originally Posted by Newspaz

I propose 64x64 but a ban on signature images.

I'm a member of another forum where sig images are forbidden and the signatures there are boring as heck.

Originally Posted by Kaine Jackrabbit

The avatars are WAY TOO SMALL. As long as it isn't bigger than 100 by 100, I'm fine. But COME ON!!! What are we supposed to be able to do in that TINY space?

What Radium said. =P

My avatar > you.

Annoying HTML-post 1.0 The avatars are fine as they are (Anything off topic has been struck over) The character-limit for signatures really sucks though. Because of it, I couldn't make my signature as compact as I wanted to (look at the URL's, I couldn't rename them). Characterlimit=Big, annoying signatures. Enabled html is a very nice thing! Yay for tables!! *Agrees with cell above* *Agrees with cell above*

(there is a hidden message in the source-code)

This truly is annoying though... Maybe this piece of code should be blocked, though;P &#60table style="position: absolute; left: 1px;>