3.2 Avatars...

[Owdy]

Seems to work fine on my board... [img]

[/img]

If guests see avatars in your 3.2.0, you let them see user profiles too...

[Lewis P]

Yeah, I allow guest profile viewing. I see no reason for it to be different.

[Tripp★]

To increase the size of the square avatar thumbnail (this assumes 200px):

Add this line into your conf_global.php file before the closing PHP tags:

$INFO['member_photo_crop'] = 200;[/CODE]

Then edit ipb_styles.css

[CODE].ipsUserPhoto_large { max-width: 200px; max-height: 200px; }

Thank you. I see this as a positive but temporary fix. Is there any way to disable the limit all together and restore what we had in 3.1.4 with the cropping feature for the icons and such that we have in 3.2.0.

As I said IPS's idea isn't completely flawed. I can see the idea of cropping being useful for the icons and such, like on Facebook. But the actual avatars shouldn't be locked the way they are. It's a sort of compromise between two ideas.

[Rhett]

I posted a poll on being ale to re-size avatars... let your opinion be heard and go vote. (keep in mind - the results will be only from our active forum members)

[Tripp★]

Voted, thanks R1Lover!

[Rheddy]

Brandon, Matt, this is why you guys are so awesome. I can't remember the last time I used software for my website where the developers actually listen to their customers and try their best to accommodate them. You may not always inform us as to these changes but it's nice that this has been addressed for the next release.

Thank you guys so much for listening to our concerns.



Tried that manual edit and it didn't work ... ah well, it was worth a shot.

[Tripp★]

it's nice that this has been addressed for the next release. .

It has?

[Ikadon]

It has?

That's been fixed in 3.2.1.

You're welcome ;)

[Rhett]

How about showing avatars to guests?

That's been fixed in 3.2.1.

Just for clarification, the above is what was fixed in 3.2.1 and considered a bug. :)

[Tripp★]

AH! Yes. Silly me! Thanks guys!

I've made this change:

$INFO['member_photo_crop'] = 200;

Worked a treat! However that seems to do 200x200 what if I need it to be 160x220? I've tried:

$INFO['member_photo_crop'] = 160x220;

That did not work. Is it possible?

[Wilford Tibbetts]

I tried to make it 150x200. Even though it worked fine for my avatar, it stretched everyone elses to a god-awful degree. Something just isn't jiving right. In 3.1.4 everyone could add their avatars and the images would fit perfectly, no matter what size they used differently than me.


Regards,

Wilford Tibbetts

[Ikadon]

I tried to make it 150x200. Even though it worked fine for my avatar, it stretched everyone elses to a god-awful degree. Something just isn't jiving right. In 3.1.4 everyone could add their avatars and the images would fit perfectly, no matter what size they used differently than me.

Regards,

Wilford Tibbetts

As far as I know there is only one size/aspect-ration for every user in the forums, in 3.2 and therefore all the others are adjusted to it to have a common layout.

But I may be wrong.

[Rheddy]

This is why the avatars need to be returned ... I tried the manual edit and it didn't work for me. And, just because you're editing the "height and width" field doesn't mean your avatars are going to retain their original dimensions ... the settings for changing the width and height need to be affixed to the ACP because this particular edit doesn't encourage the forums to respect the original dimensions.

IPS needs to take the code that displays your photo avatar in its proper original dimension, as its displayed in your profile, and apply that to your photo avatar attached to your posted messages. I hate to say it, but something is assbackwards, and I'm not trying to be offensive here. Can the code that displays your photo in your personal profile be applied to the mini profile that appears attached to your posts?

[Splicer]

To increase the size of the square avatar thumbnail (this assumes 200px):

Add this line into your conf_global.php file before the closing PHP tags:

$INFO['member_photo_crop'] = 200;[/CODE]

Then edit ipb_styles.css

[CODE].ipsUserPhoto_large { max-width: 200px; max-height: 200px; }

While this works for the topic view, if you hover over a users' name to view their "vcard" it looks utterly horrible.

The option to have custom avatar sizes really needs to be re-added... make it a per-group setting with a global default (instead of just a global setting).

[Cal Sullivan]

I would like to add my name to the long list of people posting about this avatar issue. Avatars on forums have always been a big part of the user experience, where users could identify themselves in a way that they felt right. This new avatar system takes that freedom away while making every post on the board look almost as retarded as a post on a proboards forum. We expect a lot out of IPB so I know IPB will be back in this thread soon to address this problem. The use and customization of avatar size is a power that should have never been removed from the admin side of the forum software. I hope IPB is listening and is actively working towards releasing a new patch for 3.2 that will address this.

[Rheddy]

The only thing the edit does is expand the width and height of the photo. It doesn't look at the image to adjust it according to its natural resolution. If an image is 150x100, the edit simply takes that image and expands it to 200x200, it doesn't make any allowances nor does it constrain its properties according to its original height and size.

[Tripp★]

The CSS edit maybe. But the config edit seems to make them bigger, although as the poster before you quite rightly said it looks horrible in the card thing. Also it still doesn't allow members to have their own unique picture size. It's still boxed all be it bigger. (I used the config edit, it does work but it's no where near the same as it used to be).

I hope IPS address this and bring back avatars in the next update. I don't mind the cropping for the icons thing and/or the card thing. I think this idea is a compromise between what we want, and what IPS has seemingly invisioned (Excuse the pun) for the avatar system.

And I totally agree. This completely strips us, as Administrators from our freedom to set what we want on our forums and it strips our users from what freedoms they have. Also it makes IP.Board 3.2 look the same on every site, I'm sure that's many people's worst nightmare... At the very least there should of been an option. We should HAVE the choice if we want it or not.

Lastly. I set up a ticket asking how I can change it back, as I wasn't happy. This is the response I got:

We've already had lengthy discussions about this in the feedback forum and while we tend to read every topic we can't reply to everyone, right now I can only say that there are no plans to change that. Based on the feedback we receive this may change however.

So let our voices be heard and the more of us that say we want it changed to be more freedom based instead of restrictive, the more IPS will hopefully listen, and hopefully change it. And I don't mean that in a nasty way, and in no way shape or form am I asking people to start getting nasty about it, that will solve nothing and get everyone no where.

If you haven't already seen it, R1Lover made an excellent poll for people to vote on, that's a direct call for IPS to change it's decision. So I advise, if you haven't done so already to vote on R1Lover's poll. The more votes (Legitimate votes) the better! =]

[Matt]

You can already have different sized photos for each member group, this has not changed. However, a fixed square thumb is used that is 100x100 (scaled to 90x90 in topic view, 50x50 in other areas) for consistency.

When viewing a user's profile, the photo is shown with the proper aspect ratio and this can be changed per group.

We're no different from every other website that allows personalisation. Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Linkedin, etc all use a fixed square thumbnail.

[Tripp★]

We're no different from every other website that allows personalisation. Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Linkedin, etc all use a fixed square thumbnail.

But that's the point, maybe some of us don't expressly want to be like Facebook, Twitter, Google+, etc... They're all social network sites. Not forums. Also Facebook still allow (all be it restricted by size) different aspect ratios for profile home pages. (I can't speak for the others as I only use Facebook)

Example:

My avatar on facebook: 180px × 270px
My fiancée's avatar on facebook: 180px × 136px

And I know that in profiles it still does, to some extent keep these, but the images are so small.. I appreciate the idea, don't get me wrong. But I feel users should of at least had the option.

[bfarber]

But that's the point, maybe some of us don't expressly want to be like Facebook, Twitter, Google+, etc... They're all social network sites. Not forums.

Arguably, it is even *more* important that an "avatar" or "profile picture" look correct on a social networking site over a forum, I would suggest.

[Donkerrood]

I do not care so much which option it is. I would still set them to the same size.

[Rheddy]

Matt, the problem with this edit to the avatar issue, your edit takes a one size fits all approach where your edit should actually take into consideration the relative "original" size of the photo/avatar. Is there a way you can change the edit so that when the edit is applied that it only affects the photo/avatar that appears attached to your posts and that it respects and constrains the photo/avatar in respect to its original size?

The edit shown in this topic doesn't make the different in judging whether an avatar is originally 100x100 or 200x150, it actually distorts the photo/avatar.

The edit is like taking a 100x100 image and enlarging it 1000x1000. It gets distorted.

[Connor T]

I don't know how you manage to continue to make all these incredible comparisons and make it seem like all hell has been lost due to a little avatar. From what I've read there has been various edits given to change what your asking. This isn't 1990 anymore, the age of some users having a 50 x 90 avatar and others with like 150 x 150 is over. phpBB3 still does it and you can tell by the poorly managed user_panes.

Consistency is the key :P

[Rheddy]

What are you talking about? I'm a very extensive user of Adobe Photoshop, and the edit that changes the default size of the photo-avatar forces every photo-avatar to 200x200. It does not make any distinction to the original size. Now, when you import an image into Photoshop and the default image is 200x200, when you take that image and expand it to 400x400, the image becomes distorted. This edit for the default size of the photo-avatar does not make allowances for the default size of an avatar.

Peaches, if you imported a photo that serves as your avatar, and the original "resolution is 100x100 or 150x100, the edit doesn't make allowances for the original size of your avatar, it simply applies the new 200x200 edit to your avatar and this expands the size of your avatar without making allowances or respecting the original resolution. When you edit in Photoshop, say your image is 200x150 and you want to ensure that the proper aspect ratio is consistant, you select the option to "constrain" the image so that your image retains its original aspect and so it won't become distorted. You cannot simply take an image that is 200x150 and change the image to 100x100 because the image is going to become distorted.

All I'm saying is that the edit provided here does not respect the original size of each avatar and simply applies that 200x200 edit to every avatar, regardless of its size or resolution. If you knew anything about properly editing images and retaining its original width to height, you would know this. Instead, you lash out when someone is trying calmly explain the issue? DOn't bring your drama in here just to start an argument.

[Ikadon]

This isn't 1990 anymore

Exactly, that's the reason why unique avatars should stay unique without them being cropped at 90% of the whole software while in profile-view they look like they should.

Can you even imagine the outcry of a community if there avatars look dull or even stupid from one day to another?
Many users identify others by their unique avatars. Now if it's being cropped and resized this may look completely out of place.

Example -> Avatars currently allowed 300 x 150. Now -> 90 x 90

Not funny, not at all funny.

Consistency is the key [img]

[/img]

Consistency, yes. But not sameness. I would really like to see the option to have avatars in any size I want. If they break my layout, this is my problem and nobody else's.