# FA Avatar Sizes



## Dragoneer (Oct 10, 2005)

There's been a lot of talk regarding FA icon size, so I figured I'd put it up to a poll. What do you think the optimal FA avatar size should be?


----------



## DarkVixen (Oct 11, 2005)

Me, I'm a good old fashioned 100x100 girl. Anything smaller is REALLY hard to make it look good!


----------



## furry (Oct 11, 2005)

80x80 !

75x75 works, too >.>


----------



## Xax (Oct 11, 2005)

2x2!

you know you want it.


----------



## Dragoneer (Oct 11, 2005)

Xax said:
			
		

> 2x2!
> 
> you know you want it.


1x1 alpha pixel avatars! Unleash your imagination... in single pixel form.


----------



## Xax (Oct 11, 2005)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> 1x1 alpha pixel avatars! Unleash your imagination... in single pixel form.



They could make mosaics. Lots and lots of mosaics.


----------



## TORA (Oct 11, 2005)

I personally like 150x150, but I don't have a say in that.


----------



## Ursus_Amplus (Oct 11, 2005)

512Kb plz


----------



## UnicornPrae (Oct 12, 2005)

Judging from the results so far bigger is better. hur hur hur gaffaw cough hur hur. So it appears most want the option of glorious 100x100 I had a site that insisted on 50x50 and I mean precisely that pixel count not even one smaller and my avatar looked just plain awful.

I would say that with avatars bigger is better.


----------



## Suule (Oct 12, 2005)

Only 100x100 can capture what a sexy guy I am.


----------



## Dende-snail (Oct 12, 2005)

I can understand that people want big pictures but do you imagine how a deviation comments will look with these big avatars ? Yous may think about an alternative vers... Big avatars for forums and home pages and smaller for comments.
I voted 50x50 -_-


----------



## gryc_ueusp (Oct 12, 2005)

Perhaps a default setting of 100x100, but a setting in the user profile to set thumbnails/icons/etc. to the setting of the user's choice.


----------



## Tabuu-Lion (Oct 12, 2005)

it's not the size of your face...

I said 60x60. It's the most sensible size to me. That way putting your friend's icons on your page doesn't take up a completely huge amount of space. 

I take it a lot of the people who picked 100x100 use the hugest resolution readily available on their comp e.e


----------



## Suule (Oct 12, 2005)

Well I'm not rich enough for having a 21" monitor, but I'm getting there...

I'm using 1280x1024. And AFAIK most people nowadays use at least 1024x768


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2005)

Mine is 832 x 624 Default and can't go lower or higher than that and I'm not even complaining about the size... 100x100 is ahoy!


----------



## Pico (Oct 12, 2005)

The big avatars just don't look good on comment pages and watch lists.  They're fine on the main page/profile of each user, but having a lot of big avatars all over one's page just looks bad, imo, and very cluttered.  I definitely prefer 60x60 or 50x50.  I have had no problems making a small avatar look good, and people on DA and SA don't seem to have a problem with the limited size either.


----------



## Tabuu-Lion (Oct 12, 2005)

gryc_ueusp said:
			
		

> Perhaps a default setting of 100x100, but a setting in the user profile to set thumbnails/icons/etc. to the setting of the user's choice.



Hey...That could be a good idea...

That way, the people who like big avatars could have a big ass ugly pixelated and stretched version of my 60x60 avatar to display 100x100 for them, and I can have a small, smooshed and degraded ugly 60x60 version of their 100x100 avatar. And we can all be happy 

No, I am not being sarcastic.


----------



## Tikara (Oct 13, 2005)

If you ask me, I'm going with 60x60 and lower. Being most art sites have 50x50 and nothing but, the least we can do is make ours a bit bigger or smaller. Even if the 60x60 rule is in place, we can go smaller than that, such as 50x50. 100x100 is good for journals and forums and such, but when avs that are that big in a friends or watch list, that can get really annoting. Plus, they might take too long to load, and could really slow the site down.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2005)

lets steal an idea from LJ! Multiple Avatar options!

One for Comment, One for Journal, and One for Homepage!


----------



## TehSean (Oct 13, 2005)

Went with 60x60 as that was the default size from FA Version 1, I believe.

Going with larger sizes means a negative impact on bandwidth usage.  While the vote is nice, it's probably rather meaningless and only really meant to give the developer(s) a snapshot of what people most desire and will not immediately mean:  Yes, 100x100 pix avatars.


----------



## Bravo (Oct 14, 2005)

If the worry is the height of the avatars, why not go with something like ....

200 x 60

Enough room to do something, yet no giant gaps in posts/shouts/etc? 

Personally I think 100x100 is still rather small, but with the format of FA, it does seem rather big since the individual pages are just so chock full of stuff.


----------



## Dragoneer (Oct 14, 2005)

Bravo said:
			
		

> If the worry is the height of the avatars, why not go with something like ....
> 
> 200 x 60
> 
> ...


Well, what I'd like to see are "user icons" and "user profile images". User icons have a standard size, e.g. smaller 60x60, but larger user profiles icons (say, 240x120)  to offer more of a "headshot" style profile view that users can stick onto their main user page.

This way, users could have a small icon that reduces bandwidth overall, but it gives their user profile a nice, large image that allows for more personality. The user could use a smaller icon version of their larger profile image, etc.

The user profile image would stick to their profile, allowing people the ability to at least get some customization in there. At least, that's what I'd do if I were coding...


----------



## Bravo (Oct 14, 2005)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> This way, users could have a small icon that reduces bandwidth overall, but it gives their user profile a nice, large image that allows for more personality. The user could use a smaller icon version of their larger profile image, etc.
> 
> The user profile image would stick to their profile, allowing people the ability to at least get some customization in there. At least, that's what I'd do if I were coding...



That had been originally what I was using the css page banner and such for since the icons were just too small imho. ^_^; Having 2 separate avatars sounds great though.


----------



## Lili Fox (Nov 1, 2005)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> Bravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, I second that!  I voted 60 * 60 cos I think to use a bit avatar for EVERYTHING (comments, etc.) would be a little tacky looking.  But yeah, a large icon for the main user profile would look pretty good!


----------



## Tabuu-Lion (Nov 2, 2005)

It'd be like a miniature version of the DeviantArt IDs 

Yeah, I know it won't -.-


----------



## MistressVixen (Nov 2, 2005)

*hmmm*

I'd say, 100x100 and allow anyone to make it smaller. 100x100 would be max size.


----------



## Daddyfox (Nov 3, 2005)

1x1

heh heh


----------



## Lili Fox (Nov 3, 2005)

*Re: hmmm*



			
				MistressVixen said:
			
		

> I'd say, 100x100 and allow anyone to make it smaller. 100x100 would be max size.



Actually, to keep everything uniform looking, Yaoi Gallery has this feature where it puts thumbnails up in the friends list of all the pics and they look all the same size,.  And when you hover over them, the full size userpic shows up.  Maybe we can do something like that!


----------



## Keto (Nov 3, 2005)

lol well 100x100 is winning of course ;P

Cmon, most of us here are artists, we despise limitations, so of course the biggest one was gonna get the lead


----------



## Tabuu-Lion (Nov 3, 2005)

Keto said:
			
		

> lol well 100x100 is winning of course ;P
> 
> Cmon, most of us here are artists, we despise limitations, so of course the biggest one was gonna get the lead



I suppose there's somewhat of a point in that, since no one wants to degrade and smoosh a good avatar at times. I just look at the comments/replies and see all that wasted space, though e.e


----------



## Lili Fox (Nov 3, 2005)

Tabuu-Lion said:
			
		

> Keto said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, I do agree that looks tacky.  If the larger icons are going to be put into use, is there any way to put the comments alongside of the avatars so that gap won't be there?


----------



## dave hyena (Nov 4, 2005)

50 by 50 is good enough for me. 

Though, perhaps one day it might be possible to abandon avatars entirely, and simply have naught but the text of a username. 

I have no idea how much processing time or bandwidth that might save, but I'm sure it would be some.


----------



## MistressLeathurkatt (Nov 6, 2005)

The thing is, alot of furs like having an avatar, makes them easilly recognisable at a glance, as well as showing off an art sample in the process to get others interested in having a look-see...  At least that's how I feel about it, others will invariably have their own view on it...


----------



## Guppy (Nov 7, 2005)

I went with 100x100, however, I'm fine with smaller, but I'd love to have the dimentions locked so th at everyone has the same sized avatar, it looks bad when there are 60x60, 50x50, 50x10 and 25x25 avatars all over the place,


----------



## Nobod3 (Nov 8, 2005)

I'm gonna be honest on this topic and say I don't care. What I would like to see is some preset avatars for our levels, 'cause I'm really lazy and I don't like trying to actually find a nice avatar... 

Like, for Lurker we have the mascot
for FA pup we find a cute* finalized anthro puppy
for FA posthound a finalized anthro hound and so on

*cute...can't define....I guess I mean not ugly?


----------



## Lili Fox (Nov 8, 2005)

Nobod3 said:
			
		

> I'm gonna be honest on this topic and say I don't care. What I would like to see is some preset avatars for our levels, 'cause I'm really lazy and I don't like trying to actually find a nice avatar...
> 
> Like, for Lurker we have the mascot
> for FA pup we find a cute* finalized anthro puppy
> ...



Sounds cute, yeah, but we were moreso referring to the avatars for our user accounts on the artsite itself as opposed to the message board.


----------



## Suule (Nov 9, 2005)

Oh great... I wonder what would FA Postwhore look like


----------



## Ursus_Amplus (Nov 9, 2005)

Suule said:
			
		

> Oh great... I wonder what would FA Postwhore look like



*Starts up the stripper music and dances around a pole*


Seriously though, 50 is too small - you cant get enough detail, and 100 is too large - it hogs the screen. 75-80 is about right imho.


----------



## theFinalFlight (Nov 9, 2005)

I voted 100x100, but I think any size over 50x50 is fine. I don't mind 50x50 so much, but it is very difficult to make a quality icon with that sizing (with the exception of those blessed with talent in pixel-art). Let's face it, avatars can be very important in getting a glimpse at an artist, be it their own personal style (if their own art is used), their identity (fursona), or even their thought process (witty phrases/slogans, etc). I can certainly agree with the complaints, though, that 100x100 can produce wasted space if the comment box is kept that way.

However, I'll take what I can get XD


----------



## Raven (Nov 14, 2005)

back a while ago i said 60x60, but now i like 100x100, quite frankly, i dont care what size it is aslong as everyone is forced to have the same size. It looks messy and unorganised if someone has a 100x100 avatar then someone else has like a 20x50 or a 70x70 or somthing. makes it look. bleh.

so i dont care aslong as its required to be the same size. otherwise my watched list looks like poop.

x3 thats all


----------



## Almafeta (Dec 7, 2005)

Can software be used to resize avatars?

If so, perhaps you could give us 100x100 for admin news/announcements and user page, shrunken down to 50x50 (and saved in a seperate directory, so the software is only invoked once per avatar) for fav lists, watchby lists, popups, and comments.


----------



## Captain Oz (Dec 14, 2005)

I like the two avatar size idea.  A large (100x100) for homepage/forum avatars and a smaller (50x50) for friends lists/watched by/ comments.  It gives the user a chance to express themselves where it really counts (on their page) and doesn't take up extra space nor leave unused space on other people's pages.


----------



## alumasqrl (Dec 15, 2005)

i was pleased to see FA implement 100x100 avatars when i came back. 
i'd always used 100x100 for thumbnail images in my own site as it gives plenty of room to convey the overall nature of a larger image.  

... but after using that larger size for an avatar, i'd have to say that a 60x60 would be plenty for an avatar image.  we're not trying to cram a 600 pixel-wide image into a tiny thumbnail.  for anyone who uses methods better than "Image>ScaleImage" to create avatars, the size limitation shouldn't mean much.


----------



## Metabird (Dec 15, 2005)

100x100.

It's the size I see used pretty much everywhere else, and it's a bit difficult to make certain things look good in anything smaller.


----------



## Mr Cullen (Dec 16, 2005)

My Avatar is too sexy to be anything under 100 X 100! IT WOULD BE AN AFFRONT TO MENTOK!


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 17, 2005)

Mr Cullen said:
			
		

> My Avatar is too sexy to be anything under 100 X 100! IT WOULD BE AN AFFRONT TO MENTOK!


I'LL MAKE YOU FUN SIZE!


----------



## alumasqrl (Dec 17, 2005)

thinking more about it 
and looking at how the avatars are already being scaled for watchlists, 
i think the best method would be to have multiple files as was previously suggested.  this would avoid probs with images that are not square or do not scale cleanly with the existing methods.


----------



## Mr Cullen (Dec 19, 2005)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> Mr Cullen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I AM SOMEWHAT DISTURBED BY THAT STATEMENT :


----------

