More width = good
Less height = bad
Based on Andy's recent comment, I've been looking into adjusting the avatar size so that it's much wider than it currently is...approximately talking about 150-160 pixels to be exact and around 60-70 pixels in height.
In addition, not that bandwidth remains an issue, but to ensure optimal speed on the boards, I will be looking into remote image input for avatars (in other words, they'd have to be loaded on another server instead of ours). This will save space for other essential things. Please get the word out regarding this thread since this discussion affects EVERYONE on the boards...
Smaller is better imho.
I also think keeping the aspect ratio the same (ie. squares) works better for most peoples avatars.
Widescreen avatars would be very cool.
/me quacks
As far as width goes, as long as the user info area doesn't increase in size (shortening the width of the post) wider is fine. I agree with burgundy about less height=bad though.
As far as the remote hosting, I personally don't have a problem with it since I have 10MB of web space from my ISP.
Never under any circumstance scrutinize the mastication orifice of a gratuitous herbivorous quadruped.
more options are always better
Is it possible to keep 100x100 and have 70x160?
That way the squares could keep theirs and the hip kids could go widescreen...
Bookmarks