"Larger Avatars with the New TMP? Please?" Topic

Just wondering if we'd be able to have larger avatars under the new coding. 32x32 is really teeny on the newer widescreen monitors. Has to be the world's smallest avatars. Yes, bigger is better--only losers say otherwise! ;-)

I like the uncluttered look the place has now. I've got a big monitor myself, and the avatars look fine to me.

I would appreciate the opportunity to show off my larger avatar as well :)

I have been on some other sites that have been way too cluttered – very annoying. Larger avatars might be OK, but no elaborate sig lines and all that other junk, please.

Some avatars are nicer than others:

YouTube link

I would think in that way lies madness but then again it's one of the two perks you get by donating. Maybe a nice conservative 50 x 50 would be nice. Still that signature thing on other forums is madness.

I was thinking something like 50x50. Nothing overboard.

No! No! No! One of the nice things about this site is its refusal to follow the trend for large flashy gee-gaws.

TMP's small icons are less distracting, plus they stretch people's creativity more to come up with something good within the constraints (mine is one of the worst, mind you!).

On my 26" monitor, the icons are about the size of my pink's nail. A slightly larger one would be nice.

Yeah right! Just what I need ~ bigger boobs!!

I don't mind the small avatars, but if the maximum size of 3k could be raised to, say… 6k, then more interesting animated GIFs could be used. 3k is somewhat limiting.

E.H.

Double the pixel size (from 32x32 to 64x64) would be OK.

No! No! No! One of the nice things about this site is its refusal to follow the trend for large flashy gee-gaws.

Depending how Bill's doing it, most modern forum software allows users to decide if they wish to see sig blocks, avatars, etc. In addition, the poster information is down the side, not along the top of each post, meaning there's usually less wasted space than on the TMP forums. In effect, TMP actually forces me to look at the "flashy gee-gaws".

No! No! No! One of the nice things about this site is its refusal to follow the trend for large flashy gee-gaws.

Yeah right! Just what I need ~ bigger boobs!!

Why do all the intelligent responses come from south of the Equator?
Does the blood rushing to the brains of all you guys hanging upside down make you smarter?

Yes god yes please a bit more size to the avatars, I'd be happy with 10% more size.

While we are at it Bill, please set up an option for a text document only display so that the poor dial up users – Elderly fearing those heathen flashy lights – Win 3.1 users – and that curmudgeon in the corner ballyhooing any change is causing the children dance… and we all know were dancing leads too can only see the text and no foul pictures. You could call it the Rose Tinted Fez or Indiana Fez, you know for his love of relics.

I am also begging for a built-in system where; Quoting, Bold, Italicized, and all the other CURRENTLY ALLOWED OPTIONS are a click away. No more manually putting it in.

I don't need a How to Guide next to it… I know how, it's a hassle to do it. I am sure for a dozen people crying out in anguish that you love to do it, it's the bees knees and all that. But I am privileged to leave that behind back in the early 90's. I also got rid of my 8 tracks, and my buggy wip collection so I'd kind of a technophile.

YouTube link

I can't tell you how many avatars I squint at here and think, "What the is that?"

Steve
Cavalcade Wargames
cavalcadewargames.com
nycjadie.wordpress.com

As one of those who makes avatars, a little more room is good, but a larger file size would be much better.

My recommendation would be 50x50 pixels max (to avoid bloating the name bar) and 8-10kb

Wyatt

Move the poster names and avatars to the side. Move the thread title to the top. As it is now, depending on how long the words making up the thread title are, 1/4 to 1/3 of the screen is wasted because the title is in the column on the left.

YouTube link

If there is a word that springs to mind when I think of TMP, it is certainly not "uncluttered."

Bigger avatar, yes indeed, I'm for that. And text tools. No sigs, I agree, no sigs….

I say yes to bigger avatars. For some time now, I've been looking for a good way to deploy this baby: picture

Ned Lud is alive and well

…and quite happy with things the way they are, thank you very much. Bigger avatars provide no improvement to the content of the site. If one feels the need to compare wedding tackle, there are plenty of other sites overwhelmed by avatars, sigs, and banners, where one can indulge one's predilections.

Allen

Allen,

Lots of things here provide no content. Why do we have a food forum in a wargaming site. It is because people like to call a place "home" and frankly sir I like to have a large painting of myself over my mantle at home. Preferably of me wrestling a bull or perhaps standing in front of my library.

Would this be suitable size (450x450)?

picture

Ditto Wyatt T-O. He's a professional, he knows what he's talking about.

"Would this be suitable size (450x450)?"

That is *exactly* what I do not wish to see.

I have a Stivers print of the 3d ACR over *my* (n.b.) mantel. I have no need to inflict it one anyone else--or my print of Fred Burnaby reclining seductively on a chaise longue, either.

Allen

John the OFM

---Why do all the intelligent responses come from south of the Equator?
Does the blood rushing to the brains of all you guys hanging upside down make you smarter?---

I think the blood may rush to other parts of the body when the Northern Hemisphere guys see my avatar, and you can't think with THAT body part.

Cheers,

Glynn

NO!
Or you will make me finally discover a way to pay for membership from Serbia and make this picture my avatar. And yes, it is Zed.

If you want flashing and colours just surround your monitor with some Christmas tree string lights or buy USB disco lights.
Or at least make such abominations optional.

link

Nik, you've changed my mind! The last thing I want to see is OFM switching to a Zed avatar: he's just been waiting for the chance, and bigger avatars would be it. So I change my vote: keep the avatars 3KB and teensy….

…and quite happy with things the way they are, thank you very much. Bigger avatars provide no improvement to the content of the site. If one feels the need to compare wedding tackle, there are plenty of other sites overwhelmed by avatars, sigs, and banners, where one can indulge one's predilections.

All of which make it easier to turn off all the bells and whistles should you so desire. At TMP, if I wish to not view avatars, I need to adblock the entire TMP/uploads/icons directory; on every other forum, it's a simple preferences option.

I recommend whatever it takes to make non-contributing members like myself a) jealous but b) not frustrated.

So bigger more viewable avatars: Nice, envious.

Really big graphical signatures like all those other dumb web sites where you can only read 2 posts per <Page Down>: Frustrating.

Andrew Paul: Double the pixel size (from 32x32 to 64x64) would be OK.

Let's use elementary math. 32x32 = 1024. 64x64 = 4096. That's quadruple the pixel size. Doubling it would be to 45x45 or so.