Keira Knightley.com Forums

Keira Knightley.com Forums (http://www.keiraknightley.com/forums/index.php)
-   KeiraKnightley.com & Forum Issues (http://www.keiraknightley.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   Concerning Avatars (http://www.keiraknightley.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1982)

Jasmine 26-09-2005 11:35 PM

Concerning Avatars
 
Why are avatars restricted to 80 x 80? I think 100 x 100 would be convenient because then people could use their LiveJournal icons as avatars on the boards as well. I was just wondering if there was a specific reason 80 x 80 was the largest size avatars were allowed to be. I don't think 100 x 100 avatarts take up that much more bandwidth or take up that much more loading time...so why can't we have 100 x 100?

Ashley 26-09-2005 11:48 PM

Why change something that's working, like the finely oiled machine that is KKW.....

deviljet88 26-09-2005 11:52 PM

vBulletin hates you.

acliff 27-09-2005 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasmine
Why are avatars restricted to 80 x 80? I think 100 x 100 would be convenient because then people could use their LiveJournal icons as avatars on the boards as well. I was just wondering if there was a specific reason 80 x 80 was the largest size avatars were allowed to be. I don't think 100 x 100 avatarts take up that much more bandwidth or take up that much more loading time...so why can't we have 100 x 100?

If you really want, send a PM to someone who actually cares.

If it was 100x100, then i'd have to update my avatar... which i'm too lazy to do

apoggy 27-09-2005 12:41 AM

so lazy in fact he is using one of my creations and taking all the credit....bitch

Jacoby 27-09-2005 02:55 AM

NO ONE taunt Jasmine. There's a line from Marching Bands of Manhattan in the signature.

Win.

Edit// Nevermind. I don't care.

Jasmine 30-09-2005 03:11 AM

Allowing 100 x 100 avatars wouldn't mean that people wouldn't be able to use 80 x 80. Those using 80 x 80 would not be affected.. they'd only have the option of 100 x 100 if they wanted.. I say, if some people (like myself) would benefit from changing the rules, and no one will be negatively affected by the change, why not change it?

(And yes, Jacoby, that is DCFC in my sig. I love them.)

Liam 30-09-2005 03:54 AM

The rules were created at the same time the forum was created, meaning the rules date back to the time when the majority of our users had dial-up internet. This may have changed since, but as long as some of our users are on 56k or slower internet, or have bandwidth limited accounts, it would be unfair to them to change.

I'll start a user poll in General Discussion to get an idea of internet speeds with a view to perhaps changing the size limit, but I won't be promising anything.

Rob The BLack Douglas 30-09-2005 04:11 AM

100x100 avatars don't mess with load times on a dial up connection. I have dialup and the avatar's have not been a problem. Big pictures or banners in sigs can be a real problem. Also raising the size from 20k to 25k would be reasonable as well.

apoggy 30-09-2005 12:35 PM

i'm against some having 80x80 and some 100x100, it would make everything look disjointed, unaligned and generally messy.

have a 100x100 avatar you want to use? Resize it damn it.

Hazzle 30-09-2005 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apoggy
i'm against some having 80x80 and some 100x100, it would make everything look disjointed, unaligned and generally messy.

have a 100x100 avatar you want to use? Resize it damn it.

No offence mate but I think she's said elsewhere that the one's she's using IS a resized 100x100 but it doesn't look as good as it does in 100x100 because it looks squished.

She's just saying she'd like to use it as it's full size, I don't think she was being demanding, just asking a question.

That said, I'm against a mix and match approach too. Either everyone has 100x100 or noone. Unless you want to make it so mods/admins have 100x100? I've seen avatars used to distinguish mods/admins from conventional members on other forums so it might work...

Digital_Ice 30-09-2005 01:32 PM

changing one avatar by 5kb or 20 px wouldnt make a difference to 56k users but if every avatar/signature that has to load is bigger, that value does add up, and if its a particularly slow day on the internet they could be there for hours.

personaly i couldnt give a shit, as im on 2.2mb bb, and my avatar is designed to be 80x80

(so dont put auto resise [up] on if you up the limit, i dont want it at 100x100)

Jasmine 01-10-2005 12:58 AM

The reason I want the size to be raised to 100x100 is because I make LiveJournal icons that are that size like these. Many of those LJ icons have details that are ruined if resized..

For example, the avatar I'd like to use is:
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a99...ine_keira8.gif
Resize that to 80x80 and you get:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...atar_80x80.gif<-- ew. completely ruins it.

Some of you say that it would ruin the uniform look of everyone having the same size avatar... well, as of now, we're allowed to have avatars that are 80x80px or smaller. Mine is smaller so... right now the "uniform look" is being thrown off by people who use avatars smaller than 80x80. My avatar right now is like 30px bellow 80 & you guys aren't getting freaked out about that. So why would it matter if some people chose to have their avatars 20px larger?

Liam 01-10-2005 01:36 AM

You are missing the point.

KKW has a set bandwidth cap. If we exceed this cap, we are offline for the remainder of the paid month. With the number of users of the forum, plus all the lurkers - all of whom download the avatars to their computer when they visit, the 5-10k difference begins to add up. The forums themselves use a fair chunk of our monthly bandwidth as is. I'm sure everyone would rather have 80x80 and a working site than 100x100 and a site offline for 7 days a month.

And besides, why change something that isnt broken?

Jasmine 01-10-2005 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liam
You are missing the point.

KKW has a set bandwidth cap. If we exceed this cap, we are offline for the remainder of the paid month. With the number of users of the forum, plus all the lurkers - all of whom download the avatars to their computer when they visit, the 5-10k difference begins to add up. The forums themselves use a fair chunk of our monthly bandwidth as is. I'm sure everyone would rather have 80x80 and a working site than 100x100 and a site offline for 7 days a month.

(alright well maybe i missed that point because nobody ever really brought it up...) So you really think that 20 pixels will make that much of a difference? I know that you have a lot of users and lurkers and whatnot, but why do the avatars have to use up kkw bandwidth? In other boards I'm at people can link to off-site avatars that are hosted elsewhere and use that bandwidth. Is this not possible at KKW? I mean I'd have no problem hosting my stuff on photobucket or whatever.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Liam
And besides, why change something that isnt broken?

Because it inconveniences some people.

Liam 01-10-2005 05:17 AM

Any image hosted anywhere on any website is downloaded to a users computer when the site is viewed. This uses the site's bandwidth. Unfortunately, thats how the internet works. A lot of people host their avatars on-site here, using the upload feature. 20 pixels may not sound like much, but when you are running a site the size of KKW, any saving you can make contributes to saving on the bandwidth bill.

I will talk to Baz and Poggs about it, but I'm fairly sure the status quo will remain in place for a little while longer.

Edit: I'm informed that all avatars are uploaded to KKW server space, regardless of where they are hosted.

acliff 01-10-2005 11:42 AM

On a seperate note, I reckon we should bring back post counts.
You might think I'm crazy, but I've got my reasons.

Hazzle 01-10-2005 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acliff
On a seperate note, I reckon we should bring back post counts.
You might think I'm crazy, but I've got my reasons.

Really? I can't see what good it'd do, but maybe you can.

What would those reasons be then?

As for the avatars, why don't we leave it to Liam to discuss (when he gets round to it :p) with Poggs and Baz and leave it at that for now? It's 80x80 for now, if and when the possibility of changing that is confirmed, then we can discuss it.

The fact is, as Liam said, if the Bandwidth usage is going to be that much more that it risks KKW being down for a few days every month, it's not worth it.

Flightfreak 01-10-2005 01:04 PM

Let the avatar size like it is. Every site has other rules if it comes to avatar sizes. Maybe in an other month we will be having someone who is used to use a 120x120 pix avatar on an other forum. 80x80 is good. resizing an avatar takes how long? 1min

Adding the post count back would make people post more crap I think. because they want to have a higher post count or something. now you can check the amount of posts in the profile.

Hazzle 01-10-2005 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flightfreak
resizing an avatar takes how long? 1min

You're right about everything else but I really wish people would stop going on about how little time it takes to resize. The gripe wasn't about the effort it takes to resize but about the effect resizing has on the image.

Quote:

The reason I want the size to be raised to 100x100 is because I make LiveJournal icons that are that size like these. Many of those LJ icons have details that are ruined if resized..
See? (Incidentally it's not about use on another forum, but the fact that 100x100 is standard on LJ and lots of people use LJ, far more than visit KKW, in fact. If anything 100x100 has become a bit of a standard size because of that. Most avatars I find online are 100x100, I just resize them).

I mean I resized my avatar, I didn't particularly mind the time, however the fact that the quality was reduced a little pissed me off a bit. Not enough to make a big deal out of it, but I can understand the point that's being made, which has nothing to do with how long it takes to resize or how much effort (or lack thereof) but more to do with the quality of the final product.

However as Liam pointed out the quality improvement would come at a cost and if that cost (the extra bandwidth) would mean the site being down for any length of time it's not worth doing. If it can be done without a significant extra cost in terms of bandwidth, then I think it's a good move, as 100x100 has become pretty much a web standard, but if it can't, then so what? We'll be a bit different and leave it as is for the good of the site :)


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
By appointment to HM Keira Knightley.