Larger Avatar Filesizes
 

I find 8.0kb very harsh. I usually have to crop the avatar and mess around with it a lot before I can finally upload it (usually as a GIF).

I want to stick with the 100x100 pixels but can we increase the size to a more reasonable number?

20kb would alleviate the problem. What does everyone else think?

Been complaining about that for a couple of years now but Alcar doesn't think it needs changing apparently.

You guys don't even have transparent backgrounds. Try shrinking a .png to under 8kb.

This is an easily hurdled obstacle. Just resize.

I support this proposal.

god, just overhaul the whole shebang already.

I Agree with Alex! Not for the size but just...u know.. if we want a .GIF as out avatar!

I think the rule against GIFs was because animated avatars are freaking irritating.

Indeed.

I would be willing to consider shifting the maximum avatar filesize upwards by a few kilobytes if practical arguments were heard.

Alcar...

I actually think 20kb for an avatar is good. As for practical arguments, it makes it a lot easier to make decent avatars for one. I don't change mine all that much but when I did I always had to dial back the image quality to almost nothing to barely be able to save it under 8kb. The more detailed the picture the sooner you'll run into that problem.

It's a luxury problem if anything else, but an annoying one and OWF has the lowest avatar size limit of all the forums I go to. I'm 99% sure this isn't a storage space issue on your server, nor could it be a bandwidth issue so that begs the question; why are you so attached to a file size limit as low as possible?

I think the Avatars are okay as there are.

It isn't a storage issue, nor a bandwidth issue - we have more than plenty. It's always been about the effect on the end-user. As it stands, a single thread page is 30 posts.

30 posts × 8kB = 240kB

With your proposed increase:

30 posts × 20kB = 600kB

Given that caching is common among all major browsers, apart from the initial load, it'd be minimal upon successive loads. However, the initial load is what I am most concerned with.

Not sure if I'm comfortable with 20kB though. 12-15kB would be more to my liking.

Alcar...

Avatars are for losers and Alcar impersonations only.

Considering that we don't restrict signature pic sizes, I think that such a low limit is ridiculous. Like you say, caching will reduce most of the hit. Besides, most of the internet is now built on the supposition that end users have broadband.

What's more, people change their avatars very rarely; even if you increase the limit dramatically, the hit will be spread out over time.

Yes we do.

Oooohhhhh. Such a bastard.

I think having to have really small avatars is a load of testicles.

I don't have any problem with the limit. Optimisation, people!

Oh well. That doesn't negate the rest of my post though.

I doubt anyone on this forum is still using dial-up so I agree with Nate.

I dont know a single person using dial-up so I too am agreeing with Nate.

I don't know a sin-TOUCHING MY PENIS.

OH GOD ITS PULLING ME IN!!!

Wait a minute...

Touching your penis is a sin? I'd better stop then.

I think you'd be better off not touching OANST's penis whether it's a sin or not.

I Heard his penis has magical healing properties such as being able to close up wounds and whatnot.

100kb max on Avatars, 100x100 in pixels.

Make it happen, faggots-in-chief.

No, it can just fill in various holes in your body.

100kb is a bit much for a 100x100 pixel image. Not even uncompressed BMPs need that much storage (Wikipedia implies that a 100x100 BMP at a colour depth of 32 bits per pixel would take up 40,054bytes.

20kb should be more than sufficient for jpegs.

Shut up, faggot.