Site Feedback Avatars

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Frank Gallagher

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
21
Come on guys we dont get signatures so why cant we have avatars bigger than 50x50 .. they are impossible to see and the filse size is absolutely nothing our broadband cant handle to load quickly these days ... fair enough back when we were on 56k an avatar that size would of been like downloading a terabyte these days but now 50x50 or 9.8kb is nothing at all to servers and pc's these days .

Its time to upgrade BL , if we cant have a decent signature at least give us a decent sized ava

:)
 
Frank Gallagher said:
Come on guys we dont get signatures so why cant we have avatars bigger than 50x50 .. they are impossible to see and the filse size is absolutely nothing our broadband cant handle to load quickly these days ... fair enough back when we were on 56k an avatar that size would of been like downloading a terabyte these days but now 50x50 or 9.8kb is nothing at all to servers and pc's these days .

Its time to upgrade BL , if we cant have a decent signature at least give us a decent sized ava

:)
Click to expand...

I beg to differ.
 
oh i get it u think im a newbie here so lets go against the proposal

wrong im far from a newbie here but i get it people just like to be cunts and argue a pointy for no reason because please give me a reason why a few pixels or a few kb/s would be such a bad idea ?

oh and hey if you wanna stay in the outdated forum style thats cool

not to give my id away as i made a new user name for a reason to do with data protection but i wish i could show u some of the forums i have designed recently i really do


We are way behind
 
Last edited:
This isn't myspace. Avatars are nice but not even a necessity as it is.

Any larger it starts to look messy and that sort of thing will only slow users browsing.
 
Frank Gallagher said:
oh i get it u think im a newbie here so lets go against the proposal

wrong im far from a newbie here but i get it people just like to be cunts and argue a pointy for no reason because please give me a reason why a few pixels or a few kb/s would be such a bad idea ?
Click to expand...
i'm a cunt because i have a difference of opinion from you? nice attitude...

i'm not against your idea because you're a newbie. i'm against your idea because i don't like it on its merits. i'm not against it because it adds a few more pixels or kb - i'm against it because, for me, as a community bluelight is a victory of substance over style and large avatars are unnecessary in getting the message across.

alasdair
 
wrong im far from a newbie here but i get it people just like to be cunts and argue a pointy for no reason because please give me a reason why a few pixels or a few kb/s would be such a bad idea ?
Click to expand...
My main issue is with how much space on a page each post takes up. Sites which allow signatures and large avatars require much more scrolling about and it is more difficult to pick out the information from the personalized touches. Remember that the majority of people viewing Bluelight for harm reduction purposes are not members and don't much care who is giving them the information or what mood is striking the poster at the time.

I wouldn't be opposed to allowing larger images if there was also an option to set the size that all avatars are on my own screen so that I can control my own experience of the site as opposed to having it dictated by others (like when people send me damn emails in html or clicking a link causes a new tab to open without me specifying it). The small size would have to be the default for all the non member browsers as well.
 
I also like BL as it is, I can't stand forums with huge avatars & signatures; in those cases I tend to just disable them by default. I'd prefer a faster page-load time to a fancier avatar any day of the week.
 
lostNfound said:
This isn't myspace. Avatars are nice but not even a necessity as it is.

Any larger it starts to look messy and that sort of thing will only slow users browsing.
Click to expand...

yes they are nice when you can see them properly and yes they do look messy when too big thats why im not suggesting a large increase in size

As for page loading time we are way past the times where an avatar would cause issues to page loading time.

At least lostnfound has some open mindedness on him which i applaud you on that
 
you probably got rid of signatures because they were made by very unprofessional artists

i have seen the kind of sites you speak of with awful looking huge signatures that take up almost a whole page and yes these are very very unpleasant but they have no art coordination or rules and standards set in place to make them look good.

But its ok i have another web site project im about to start that is you ever come across will blow you away , i just wish some people would be more open minded to the way things are moving to these days , no disrespect to BL but .V6 looks like 2005.

i did send you a suggestion many months ago with great ideas and still yet no replies .

May i say that suggestion has totaled to £1000 and is almost ready for a re-run again soon
 
being open minded and disagreeing with your idea on its merits are not mutually exclusive.

i'm quite open minded - i just don't want the avatar standard on bluelight changed for the reasons i outlined (which have nothing to do with bandwidth).

alasdair
 
I don't get why you are complaining. We can see your shamrock avatar just fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top