avatar kb limit.

[FlyingJesus]

idk really i think in terms of avatar/postbit layout and design we're quite lacking behind other forums, but that's just me. i don't really want to get flamed into the ground for not knowing tech but i am just suggesting perhaps itd be NICE.

GOD YOU ARE SUCH A STUPID *removed*
But yeah even on my machinery which is hardly top of the range I'm able to load a few small gifs without problem, and it's not like most of us use animated avs anyway because they're totes gonky so it would be very rare pages that have all 10/20/40/500 posts loading separate pictures at 150kb apiece.Also I do love how much LIFE the animation brings to Bethie's current av haha why even bother 4real

Edited by Catzsy (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not avoid the filter

[beth]

GOD YOU ARE SUCH A STUPID *Removed*

But yeah even on my machinery which is hardly top of the range I'm able to load a few small gifs without problem, and it's not like most of us use animated avs anyway because they're totes gonky so it would be very rare pages that have all 10/20/40/500 posts loading separate pictures at 150kb apiece.Also I do love how much LIFE the animation brings to Bethie's current av haha why even bother 4real

shut up mat horne is beautiful.

Edited by Catzsy (Forum Super Moderator): Please stay on topic thanks

[Recursion]

For comparison the signature limit is 400kb, changing the avatar limit to 150 will have a minute performance difference. It only has to load it once per page and normally you end up with just a few different people posting in a page. I run on forty posts per page and I see no latency issues even with "4x" the avatars. Not to mention browser caching etc.

We're not on dial up anymore people. The only way to fill up all that 150kb is with a GIF and if you've got any sensible browser it'll finish loading that last.

More than raw connection speed comes into play here.

Browser engines will load the page slower generally, more connection requests have to be made to the webserver the more content that is on a page (not like it would be anymore than it is now, hey ho, but it puts more strain on both the browser and the (already unreliable) server anyway) etc.

You should also remember, a fair number of smart phone users (me included) prefer using a full "Desktop" style on their phone whilst browsing, this would slow page loading to a crawl because of connection speed and RAM limitations on these devices.

If you're using more than 100kb in a GIF, it's either far too big or too long to be an avatar anyway, who around here sits all day watching GIF signatures/avatars? I know I don't. I see one frame before moving on.

[beth]

i don't choose my avatar because yr gonna watch it, i choose it because frankly sometimes i need a distraction from dreadful posts and watching mat horne move makes me excited inside.

[HotelUser]

More than raw connection speed comes into play here.

Browser engines will load the page slower generally, more connection requests have to be made to the webserver the more content that is on a page (not like it would be anymore than it is now, hey ho, but it puts more strain on both the browser and the (already unreliable) server anyway) etc.

You should also remember, a fair number of smart phone users (me included) prefer using a full "Desktop" style on their phone whilst browsing, this would slow page loading to a crawl because of connection speed and RAM limitations on these devices.

If you're using more than 100kb in a GIF, it's either far too big or too long to be an avatar anyway, who around here sits all day watching GIF signatures/avatars? I know I don't. I see one frame before moving on.

RAM limitations would be irrelevant here because most mobile devices, infact, all mobile devices you would even attempt to render the desktop skins on would have a decent chunk of ram.

In terms of how much desktop browsing would slow down, it wouldn't. Caching would take care of that, and the difference in sizes would be so minuscule it would be irrelevant.

In terms of mobile browsing I do think Tom and a few others here have a good point in saying things would be slowed down. Mobile devices aren't as greedy when it comes to caching images for one, and mobile data transfer speeds aren't that great, so it would likely make loading pages for mobile users slower.

[Grig]

It seems like a plausible idea as Habbox's does seem lower than other sites. However, I would be very cautious and not jeopardize the speed of the forum for this. When I load pages full of images with them off my mobile it's a nightmare, so not sure- on the fence really.

[Sharon]

no shut up focus on the actual problem PROFILE PICTURE LIMITS omg was tryna update mine but the limit was so small u g h

[beth]

profile picture who cares about that ****.

[Rixion]

I agree with this idea, if it causes a page to take longer to load then use the obvious option and change the setting of how many posts you want on a page to a lower amount your computer can handle.