Is it possible for us to use avatars that are 100x100 pixels and that are 97kb (like the profile picture) in the new slickdeals? So far, slickdeals is the only website I know of that allows us to only use 66x66 icons. The fact that I have to resize all my avatars ruins them.

Also is it possible for us to add pictures into our signatures? It would be awesome if we could.

thanks for the help.

fvck no.

fvck no.
:nono:

The 100x100px avatar size I can see, especially since the new design of the forums makes better use of the horizontal space (it's a few pixels wider, not 34px mind you, but a few)...

Pictures in signatures? Not a good idea.

The 100x100px avatar size I can see, especially since the new design of the forums makes better use of the horizontal space (it's a few pixels wider, not 34px mind you, but a few)...

Pictures in signatures? Not a good idea.

:iagree:

:mswerd:

bigger is better.

The 100x100px avatar size I can see, especially since the new design of the forums makes better use of the horizontal space (it's a few pixels wider, not 34px mind you, but a few)...

Pictures in signatures? Not a good idea.:iagree: This makes sense now that there will be a new layout and things are smaller. Pictures in sigs, I don't like and annoying, plus it was mentioned in an earlier post that it takes longer for the page to load if pics were in sigs.

The 100x100px avatar size I can see, especially since the new design of the forums makes better use of the horizontal space (it's a few pixels wider, not 34px mind you, but a few)...

Pictures in signatures? Not a good idea.
:iagree::iagree: (get it? I agree two/too.) I gotta get off the drugs!

If there are still plenty of SD visitors on dialup, that would be a good reason to keep avatars small.

If there are still plenty of SD visitors on dialup, that would be a good reason to keep avatars small.
who uses dialup now... dsl is like $10 a month.

who uses dialup now... dsl is like $10 a month.
yah good thing you have lived everywhere and know that.

who uses dialup now... dsl is like $10 a month.A lot of people are still on dialup because there is no DSL or cable within miles of their residence. I was out visiting in California this spring and had to drive 40 miles to get high speed internet service. Once you get outside major metro areas, dialup is still prevalent.

In 2005, there were about 50 million broadband subscribers in the US (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&t=328305&u2=http://www.ispreview.co.uk/cgi-bin/news/viewnews.cgi?id=EEuuluAVFuIpUCVmbo). There are about 105 million households (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&t=328305&u2=http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html).

The 50% that don't have broadband would have to use dialup if they access the internet. For some years to come, bandwidth constraints due to dialup users will be a consideration in website design.

A lot of people are still on dialup because there is no DSL or cable within miles of their residence. I was out visiting in California this spring and had to drive 40 miles to get high speed internet service. Once you get outside major metro areas, dialup is still prevalent.

In 2005, there were about 50 million broadband subscribers in the US (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&t=328305&u2=http://www.ispreview.co.uk/cgi-bin/news/viewnews.cgi?id=EEuuluAVFuIpUCVmbo). There are about 105 million households (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&t=328305&u2=http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html).

The 50% that don't have broadband would have to use dialup if they access the internet. For some years to come, bandwidth constraints due to dialup users will be a consideration in website design.
this is the only website that cares about this..
look at this website:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/memberlist.php?&order=DESC&sort=posts&pp=30

even stuffz.net lets us use 100x100 avatars.

The 100x100px avatar size I can see, especially since the new design of the forums makes better use of the horizontal space (it's a few pixels wider, not 34px mind you, but a few)...

Pictures in signatures? Not a good idea.
:iagree: :iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

this is the only website that cares about this..
look at this website:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/memberlist.php?&order=DESC&sort=posts&pp=30 (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=16556&t=328305&u2=http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/memberlist.php?&order=DESC&sort=posts&pp=30)

even stuffz.net lets us use 100x100 avatars.Different user base?

What percent of SD users use dialup?

I'm sure that Mr. SD has an idea of his visitor's ISPs and hence their method of connection. Keep in mind that if you are looking at threads of 20 - 40 different avatars, it makes a big difference to the end user if those avatars are 20KB or 40KB each. On a typical dialup line, downloading 20 avatars of 20KB would take over a minute (1MB = 3 minutes on dialup). Double the avatar size and you're looking at two minutes just to view a thread. I suppose you could say, "then turn off avatar display," but then those dialup users would miss out.

Which is more important, the size of ones avatar or what he does while posting?

Different user base?

What percent of SD users use dialup?

I'm sure that Mr. SD has an idea of his visitor's ISPs and hence their method of connection. Keep in mind that if you are looking at threads of 20 - 40 different avatars, it makes a big difference to the end user if those avatars are 20KB or 40KB each. On a typical dialup line, downloading 20 avatars of 20KB would take over a minute (1MB = 3 minutes on dialup). Double the avatar size and you're looking at two minutes just to view a thread. I suppose you could say, "then turn off avatar display," but then those dialup users would miss out.

Which is more important, the size of ones avatar or what he does while posting?
lets just let slickdeals decide what to do :lol:

Different user base?

What percent of SD users use dialup?

I'm sure that Mr. SD has an idea of his visitor's ISPs and hence their method of connection. Keep in mind that if you are looking at threads of 20 - 40 different avatars, it makes a big difference to the end user if those avatars are 20KB or 40KB each. On a typical dialup line, downloading 20 avatars of 20KB would take over a minute (1MB = 3 minutes on dialup). Double the avatar size and you're looking at two minutes just to view a thread. I suppose you could say, "then turn off avatar display," but then those dialup users would miss out.

Which is more important, the size of ones avatar or what he does while posting?
Options to remove avatars/signatures is under UserCP.

I agree with bigger avatars, but not with signatures.

lets just let slickdeals decide what to do :lol::iagree:

Along the same lines, may be its an option and I don't see it and I know its prob a bandwith issue or something but it would be nice if you could add a picture or 3 so you could link it in a post.

Options to remove avatars/signatures is under UserCP.

I agree with bigger avatars, but not with signatures.
:iagree:

Options to remove avatars/signatures is under UserCP.

I agree with bigger avatars, but not with signatures.
:iagree:

Options to remove avatars/signatures is under UserCP.

I agree with bigger avatars, but not with signatures.

I was going to suggest that there be an option to use a reduced size of avatar for dialup users. Images can be dynamically pushed out based on this option. Everyone can upload a 100x100 picture size, but based on their options, a user will see a 50x50 or a 75x75 picture (etc., etc.). It would not need to add a call to the database if this option could be set to 0x0, meaning no picture should be loaded.

If you want to see an example of a picture being dynamically loaded, check flickr. There is only a single picture stored on their servers, but when you look at (most) pictures, you will see it in 640 x some proportion, with an 'all sizes' link at the top to see it in different sizes (or even full size).

In fact, they (kinda) already do this with attachments on the forum. Check the following link:

http://beta.slickdeals.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=18459

now check this link:

http://beta.slickdeals.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=18459&thumb=1

60x60 is small, but I'm not complaining. I think 100x100 is much too big.

And a definite NO for images in signatures.

For everybody who thinks 100x100 is gonna change anything widthwise - the level indicator (epeepee meter) is 111 pixels wide. We could easily fit a 100px avatar in there with 11 to spare.

But I agree, no pics in sigs.

If there are still plenty of SD visitors on dialup, that would be a good reason to keep avatars small.

Your concern for dial-up users is definitely a valid one :nod:

Isn't it the image file size and not necessarily the dimensions of an image file that affect how quickly an image is downloaded?

I believe we could still be 56kbps-friendly while allowing the dimensions of an avatar to be increased to 100px by 100px, or whatever dimensions Mr. Slickdeals deems as fitting, as long as the file size were limited to something small (the current file size limit for a custom avatar is 19.5 KB).

(edited for clarification)