Whats up with small avatars?

sedarfaery

Banned
Banned
I recently joined and am puzzled why the maximum avatar size is 64 by 64 pixels. Lots of other boards let users have up to 100 by 100 pixels.

The smaller size leaves something to be desired as my avatar is just a bit fuzzy with how much it needed to be reduced.

So, what gives?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

We do this to thwart you. We've been planning ahead for five years now, but our plan has finally come to fruition! Bwah ha ha ha ha!

Actually, it's a holdover from the days when the server couldn't manage more than 200 people on at any one time without choking. I personally like the smaller avatars better, but we'll give some thought as to whether or not to change it.
 

Instead of reducing the image, you could crop it to save picture quality.
 


64 x 64 is just fine for me. 100x100 sounds less like an avatar and more like a portrait. AIM only lets you use 48x48.

Then again, I remember the days when no message boards had avatars. And we didn't have none of them complicated textures or backgrounds, neither. We thought 256 colors was more than we'd ever need, and we liked it. Now get offa my lawn.
 

Deset Gled said:
64 x 64 is just fine for me. 100x100 sounds less like an avatar and more like a portrait. AIM only lets you use 48x48.

Then again, I remember the days when no message boards had avatars. And we didn't have none of them complicated textures or backgrounds, neither. We thought 256 colors was more than we'd ever need, and we liked it. Now get offa my lawn.

Bah! I remember 16x16 icons as de rigueur, 32x32 as luxury size and we only had 16 colours to play with!

(yes, I was a windows 386 programmer :) )
 

Piratecat said:
I personally like the smaller avatars better, but we'll give some thought as to whether or not to change it.
It would be nice if that could happen; heck even give a larger avatar as a boon for being a community supporter would be sweet!

In any case, JMHO, and all :)

cheers,
--N
 

Remove ads

Top