-
I’m not really concerned about loading time - it’s more about screen real estate. Avatars would fit next to the username so they don’t take up any more space. And the sig doesn’t have to be one line necessarily, but there should be some limit. It could even be a pixel limit - sigs with more characters automatically being displayed in a smaller font size to fit in that space.
-
In terms of loading time, that’s not a concern if showing avatars is optional, and especially so if avatars are hosted privately.
Great news! I just signed on today and am impressed with SD and really dig the message board. I hope this means that i can continue using the MB after 30 days without having to reapply.
Welcome, shempi! This is a pretty good place to hang out, imho. 
Sigs are already limited to four lines on a standard display, which has been interpreted to mean 800 x 600 resolution.
Say, are we still talking about improving this place? 
How about some RSS feeds? I would also love to get notifications whenever particular keywords are mentioned in a thread.
For the thousandth time, in vBulletin, as I and many others have written before, users have the option to turn off avatar display. Avatar size and animation can be restricted. Don’t like the load times? Change a setting in your control panel.
This isn’t 1995, where we’re viewing the SDMB with 26K dialup connections. Yes, there’s a problem with bloated sites, but if avatar sizes are restricted to 2K or 3K, load times really won’t be a burden to most people.
Once again,
[ul][li] Users can turn off avatar display.[/li][li] Users can turn off avatar display.[/li][li] Users can turn off avatar display.[/li][li] Users can turn off avatar display.[/li][] Users can turn off avatar display.[] Users can turn off avatar display.[] Users can turn off avatar display.[] Users can turn off avatar display.[/ul]
Shortening two text lines to one would make so little difference it would be nearly impossible to measure.
And, like avatars, you can turn sigs off in the user control panel.
FYI: the ratio of data size, and therefore load times, of text to compressed graphics may be 1:10 or more. Text is very compact, graphics are much less so.
Still, the number of dialups in use will decrease over time and speed will become less of a factor.
Personally, I would not want avatars on my display.
We could default it to off, and then allow people to turn it on.
(Or do I need to write that 5 times in a row in order to make my point?)
They could do that but it wouldn’t be a good idea. It would be better for new users to notice that these features exist and then let the 2 or 3 people with aesthetic or bandwidth objections tailor things to suit themselves.
And in fairness to elmwood, that point has been raised a few times but these avatar discussions still always include a couple of “But I don’t want all those goofy pictures on my computer!”.
Perhaps you didn’t notice what you were responding to. Look at the quote box in your post. Have you noticed that users have the option to turn off sig display (I won’t bother to repeat that over and over as you did)?
Of course I know you can turn off avatars. My point was that if someone is so concerned about sigs that he wants to limit their length even though sigs can be turned off, why would he be arguing for avatars? Or, to flip it around, if he’s really into adding avatars, why would he be arguing to limit sig length?
Sigs and avatars both take up screen real estate, and they both increase bandwidth (although images take up much more).
And, CarnalK? If you think only 2 or 3 people dislike avatars, then you and I aren’t reading the same threads.
I have a feeling that if small avatars were allowed, only a minority of the people worrying about it would bother to reset their options. I base that on what I see as wildly exaggerated concerns about page clutter and download speeds. When they see that it can be implemented in a modest manner most will say “Oh, is that it? OK, then.”
In other words, you’re acknowledging that there are a whole lot more than the “2 or 3 people” you claimed don’t like avatars, but you’re assuming that the rest of them don’t know what avatars look like and will immediately leap on your bandwagon as soon as they have seen an avatar.
Okay, then. I understand where you’re coming from now. Carry on.
No, I’m assuming a lot of people are convoluting avatars with pictures in sigs, assuming they are going to be animated, and other worst case scenarios. While you seem more passionate about this issue, you should note that my “bandwagon” which people will “leap on” consists of “it’s no big deal”.
Avatars make boards messy. Even the little ones.
-FrL-
Hey, I think I read once that you can turn them off in your user control panel, even if the board you’re on decides to allow them so other members can use them if they like!
Don’t spread it around, though, okay? We wouldn’t want everyone to know about it. We’ll just keep this between us, right?
I won’t tell if you won’t.
-FrL-
[sidles up to next doper, whispers in ear]
No they don’t, they’re visually identifying. Once again, the pro-avatar folks around here are not asking for big animated pictures scrolling under every post they make. Simple small graphics next to the username would be a boon, and even “turn-off-able?” to those that don’t like it.
Yep, I was one of those that feared the worse, but Opal’s example won me over to neutrality on it.
Besides, way back when, I think I was the first one to post in this thread how you could turn them off.
Jim
I’m going to believe that Frylock really does find them messy. That’s an opinion. I disagree with it, but he’s allowed to have a different aesthetic.
But since they can be turned off, everyone wins.
