Pipe Smoker

http://superdimension.net/imag...forum/pipesmoker.jpg

Mew:

http://superdimension.net/gifs/sigforum/mew.jpg

Someone pointed out that your avatar is too large, per forum requirements. I went ahead and resized and tweaked it a little. Feel free to use my URL to host. I won't delete it.

Matthew03...
You never changed your avatar after acknowledging my new one. Just a reminder.

http://superdimension.net/gifs/sigforum/matthew03.jpg

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Orguss,

Please do this for pipesmoker too.

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:
Please do this for pipesmoker too.

No kidding. I've mentioned it to him several times. He just doesn't care.

You'd have to link me to one of his posts. It's hard to search for members.

Here's a thread he started: https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...890059424#8890059424

And yeah I've mentioned it to him too.

quote:

Originally posted by Orguss:

http://superdimension.net/gifs/2bobtanner.jpg

Your original, being way too large, has been bugging me for months. Despite all the discussions members have held on occasion regarding avatar size, yours seems to have survived the ire. But, please, it's time to conform to the forum rules.

Thank you. I was not aware that it wasn’t within specs.

The ones that are “jumping” aren’t 60x60 and the forum software is having to resize them taking up bandwidth. That is why people get testy when people don’t use a 60x60 avatar.

quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
Thank you. I was not aware that it wasn’t within specs.

'Twas my pleasure to have done business with you, sir!

Your new avatar is mighty fine.

I view SigForum on three platform/browser combos: MacOS/Safari, MacOS/Firefox, and iOS/Safari. All avatars, including mine, are presented at the same size on all three combos, so I suspect that some folks need to update their OS and/or browser. Or perhaps correct some settings.

As to file size: It’s true that when the page is “stretched”, my avatar holds details better, because it has more pixels. But they’re 8-bit gray-scale pixels, so the file size of my avatar is similar to avatars composed of fewer 24- or 32-bit color pixels. Not to mention multi-frame color GIFs.

I was expecting something more like this from Orguss for Pipe Smoker

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
I view SigForum on three platform/browser combos: MacOS/Safari, MacOS/Firefox, and iOS/Safari. All avatars, including mine, are presented at the same size on all three combos, so I suspect that some folks need to update their OS and/or browser. Or perhaps correct some settings.

As to file size: It’s true that when the page is “stretched”, my avatar holds details better, because it has more pixels. But they’re 8-bit gray-scale pixels, so the file size of my avatar is similar to avatars composed of fewer 24- or 32-bit color pixels. Not to mention multi-frame color GIFs.

It has nothing to do with the other members' OS or browsers, or their settings. Though it does have to do with their internet connection speeds.

Your avatar is actually this size:


408x412

When someone has an avatar that is larger than 60x60 as dictated by the forum guidelines, the forum software has to take over and resize the avatar from its original larger size to the correct 60x60. It has to do this every time a new page is loaded that you've posted on. And this avatar resize process is typically the last thing to be done as the page loads.

For those on fast internet connections, it happens so quickly that it's often unnoticeable. For those with slower internet, like those browsing from a mobile network, they have to sit and wait for the forum software to resize your avatar. While they're waiting on the resize, the rest of the page is already loaded or mostly loaded, but the formatting is screwed up by your oversized avatar, so they have to just wait for your avatar to be shrunk before they can start reading.

Yes, your avatar is not one of the most egregious offenders. There are folks with absolutely ginormous, multi-megabyte color avatars. Doesn't mean it's not an issue, though. Besides, while it may not be a huge file size like some other oversized avatars, your 408x412 picture has an even larger file size than my 60x60 full color animated avatar!

Please, just follow the forum guidelines and change it to 60x60. That rule is there for a reason: to help keep the forum loading quickly and smoothly, even for those on slower connections. And now a fellow member has even done the work of helping to resizing the image for you, so it will literally take a few seconds to fix.

Thank you.

His avatar appears normal when viewing on Google Chrome. I've never noticed anything unusual.

That's because you're not browsing from a slow connection, as explained in my previous post.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
I view SigForum on three platform/browser combos: MacOS/Safari, MacOS/Firefox, and iOS/Safari. All avatars, including mine, are presented at the same size on all three combos, so I suspect that some folks need to update their OS and/or browser. Or perhaps correct some settings.

As to file size: It’s true that when the page is “stretched”, my avatar holds details better, because it has more pixels. But they’re 8-bit gray-scale pixels, so the file size of my avatar is similar to avatars composed of fewer 24- or 32-bit color pixels. Not to mention multi-frame color GIFs.

Forgetting everything Rogue has politely laid out for you, it's really very simple: "Dimensions: 60 X 60 pixels" These are the required avatar sizes as declared by parabellum. Everyone else makes an attempt to conform to those requirements and gently remind offenders to do so. For you to flatly refuse is to refuse to follow para's instructions.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:
His avatar appears normal when viewing on Google Chrome. I've never noticed anything unusual.

Images are loaded, and then the coding in the forum page tells the browser to scale the image up or down to fit a 60x60 box before it is displayed.

Your browser will always display a 60x60 box with an image in it, eventually.

How long it takes before the page is displayed correctly, is a different matter.

While the image is loading, the image is displayed at full size. If the image is a very large file size, this might take more than a moment. For people with slow internet connections, this waiting time can be significant.

THEN, after the image is loaded, it takes CPU power to then resize the image and pull all the rest of the design elements on the page back into their proper position. For people with slow computers, this overhead can be rather noticeable.

Not resizing an avatar down to the proper size is sorta lazy and rude. It's like everyone in the room getting in line at the cash register with their payment in hand, and there's the one guy that waits to get to the front before he gets out a check book. Yes, technically he's paying just like everyone else, but it's kinda rude.

Even putting aside all the technical discussion, and the fact that it's a rule from Para, consider this:

You're a member of a community. One of the best communities on the web. Several fellow members have requested that you fix an issue that they've identified. They've even helped you fix it. Doing so will require very minimal effort on your part.

Your invisible friends have made a request. Be a good friend, and honor their request.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
I view SigForum on three platform/browser combos: MacOS/Safari, MacOS/Firefox, and iOS/Safari. All avatars, including mine, are presented at the same size on all three combos, so I suspect that some folks need to update their OS and/or browser. Or perhaps correct some settings.

As to file size: It’s true that when the page is “stretched”, my avatar holds details better, because it has more pixels. But they’re 8-bit gray-scale pixels, so the file size of my avatar is similar to avatars composed of fewer 24- or 32-bit color pixels. Not to mention multi-frame color GIFs.

Yeeeah, you are missing the point.

File size is just one element of it. Physical display size is also important.

If someone posted a 2 MB, 60x60 image, the image would load slowly (and take up people's potentially valuable and metered bandwidth), but it wouldn't disrupt the forum layout.

Posting a 20kb 600x600 image might actually be more disrupting as the scaling is the last thing done on the page, and it shifts all the text around.

Imagine this: A page has 10 posts on it. In the middle of the page, someone posts 3 or 4 pictures of a trip, each 1 or 2 mb each. You make a reply somewhere at the top of the page, maybe 2 or 3 posts in. A forum member comes in, starts reading the page on a cell phone connection, scrolls down, reads some more, and when the images and avatars all finally load, your avatar up at the top shrinks down a couple hundred pixels to the left and up. The forum member loses his place in reading, and has to scroll around to find out where he was.

It's a very minor inconvenience, but pages are viewed thousands upon thousands of times here. You could just help the community and resize your avatar.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
That's because you're not browsing from a slow connection, as explained in my previous post.

I think we have rather crappy internet speed, unless something has changed....I never check. Interesting.

OK, to accommodate folks with archaic platforms/browsers, I’ll make an avatar with fewer pixels. Give me a little time though – I’m in a dour mood because my bathroom scale told me this morning that I’m over my self-imposed weight limit. I’m going to have to diet.

One thing puzzles me though. Several folks have claimed that the SigForum site resizes avatars with pixel dimensions larger than 60x60. If that’s the case, why does my current 120x119 pixel avatar retain superior resolution when I “stretch” the page?