Forum - View topic

Avatars

For me the actual size is less an issue as the file size. I keet making 80x80 avatars of wallpapers I have but only 1 in 3 meets the 6kb size limit.

For me the actual size is less an issue as the file size. I keet making 80x80 avatars of wallpapers I have but only 1 in 3 meets the 6kb size limit. Instead of larger avatars I would prefer, if any changes were to be made, raising the file size to 8kb.

I don't know a single person who uses dial-up;

We will never have any sort of requirement that requires users to fulfill a goal or requirement in order to use parts of the site like other users can. It is blatantly unfair and elitist, what possible reason could there be to force new users to use smaller avatars? The reason Tempest has stated every time the subject comes up is that the limit is 6kb out of consideration of dial-up user's bandwidth, and I wouldn't be surprised if it also had to do with formatting on low resolution screens.

That said, I completely agree that not using at least 100x100 pixel and 15kb avatars is kind of inane and extremely outdated. I don't know a single person who uses dial-up; hell, even the 75ish women I saw yesterday at the sushi bar I was eating lunch at clearly had cable or some other high speed connection. Almost anyone who makes their way to a site like this is part of a demographic that is going to be extremely likely to know their way around computers and is probably not going to stand for dial-up. Also, in the numerous times this subject has come up, only one user here I can remember has stated having dial-up, and even they said they were in favor of the larger avatars.

I don't agree. it's not like it'd be a feature only certain people could use. Everyone has an oppritunity to get there.

I doubt the strain on dial-up users is too great

psycho 101 wrote:

For me the actual size is less an issue as the file size. I keet making 80x80 avatars of wallpapers I have but only 1 in 3 meets the 6kb size limit.

Do you know how to adjust JPEG compression ratio?

For people who don't know how:

http://www.jpegwizard.com/

- abunai

We will never have any sort of requirement that requires users to fulfill a goal or requirement in order to use parts of the site like other users can. It is blatantly unfair and elitist, what possible reason could there be to force new users to use smaller avatars? The reason Tempest has stated every time the subject comes up is that the limit is 6kb out of consideration of dial-up user's bandwidth, and I wouldn't be surprised if it also had to do with formatting on low resolution screens.

That said, I completely agree that not using at least 100x100 pixel and 15kb avatars is kind of inane and extremely outdated. I don't know a single person who uses dial-up; hell, even the 75ish women I saw yesterday at the sushi bar I was eating lunch at clearly had cable or some other high speed connection. Almost anyone who makes their way to a site like this is part of a demographic that is going to be extremely likely to know their way around computers and is probably not going to stand for dial-up. Also, in the numerous times this subject has come up, only one user here I can remember has stated having dial-up, and even they said they were in favor of the larger avatars.

britannicamoore wrote:

I don't agree. it's not like it'd be a feature only certain people could use. Everyone has an oppritunity to get there.

Just because everyone has an opportunity to "get there" doesn't make it fair or mean it makes any semblance of sense. Explain why someone who is been here longer should have more privileges than someone who has not been here quite as long. It's obviously arbitrary elitism, and here's the really easy way to tell: there is no amount of effort that one can put forward to change their situation in the slightest, nor does one have to put forth any effort to gain such privileges. While you're at it, why don't you explain how this delay solves any of the reasons given as to why the site doesn't have larger avatars and pick a time period that users would have to wait that we can all agree on.

This entire idea resembles the "Junior Encyclopedist" debacle, which (quite frankly) made a huge mess in the Encyclopedia. We're unlikely to make the same mistake twice.

- abunai