Reason why small avatars size is better
-Quality is nice
-Image has the taste

Reason why huge avatar is bad
-Quality is bad
-Image has no taste when it's enlarge
-Makes forum table look bad (depending on the skin)
-Looks croppy when it's 100x100 or more.

It's like making an image from 24x24 to 100x100. What will the outcome be? TERRIBLE

80x80 or less is better. It's best to reduce the size and the best program to do it, it's photoshop ;)

Actually, it depends on the design and the tools/techniques used.



Anyway, carry on... :)

I personally find avatars over 80px too large and distracting from the actual content we are here to read.

I agree - Avatar size limits used to be smaller (IIRC 64 * 64), and it was just recently changed to 80 * 80. I honestly don't see a reason why we would need 100 * 100.

Im ok with it, you can use Animation Its cool :)

...so says you of extra-wide width avatar :P
J/K ---> Actually made my avatar to fit to vB.orgs avatar rules - seems OK to me.

Jacquii.

I agree with the '80 px max' limit.

Regarding the Staff Avatars here.. on ALL sites, Staff are outside the normal rules, so it doesn't seem to make much of a difference to me that we have extra wide ones. :)

Higher res monitors make larger avs a big bonus. 80 x 80 is pretty darn small on a large LCD.

Size is a non-issue IMO. What are we talking about anyway? 1~1.5 k?

When accumulated over all the members and guests viewing all of the pages on the site, it adds up.

It is for people on 56k or less.

Even with avatars, sigs and images turned off and just 5 posts per page it takes forever to load (currently relegated to an ancient 28.8k connection).