Closed
Bug 630698
Opened 13 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
Allow bigger avatars
Categories
(support.mozilla.org :: Users and Groups, task, P4)
support.mozilla.org
Users and Groups
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
WONTFIX
2013Q4
People
(Reporter: atopal, Unassigned)
References
Details
Currently the limit for avatar sizes are 48x48 pixels. I don't know where that limitation comes from, but we should bump it up to 96x96, looks like there is enough space in the questions app, and definitely in the discussion forums.
Comment 1•13 years ago
|
||
The size 48x48 comes from how big it is where it's used. We've talked about storing at least one bigger version for profiles, 96x96 or 128x128. The discussion forum would fit 128x128 without changing anything else. (Downside would be increased file size to download.) Questions is about to change in 2.5 and wouldn't fit 96x96 most places (maybe for the OP, but how often does the OP have a non-default avatar?) and also uses 32x32 in some places. Maybe we should store: 32x32, 48x48, and 128x128. I'm not thrilled about tripling the number of files, though. This depends on bug 619222.
Depends on: 619222
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•13 years ago
|
||
Do we have mock-ups or something for the questions.app changes? I didn't know it was going to change visually that much for 2.5. Currently I do see a problem with anything bigger than 48px in the 'Solution Chosen'section. 128px seems a bit too big for most places, but it would look quite nice on the profile page. For most places 96px looks like a good compromise between the too small 48px and the too big 128px. I'm not very concerned about the number of files tbh, beacuse as you've already indicated, only a tiny minority will use a unique avatar anyway. But personalization goes a long way for community building and maintaining.
Comment 3•13 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #2) > Do we have mock-ups or something for the questions.app changes? I didn't know > it was going to change visually that much for 2.5. Currently I do see a problem > with anything bigger than 48px in the 'Solution Chosen' section. http://people.mozilla.com/~chowse/drop/sumo/questions/v3/ > 128px seems a bit too big for most places, but it would look quite nice on the > profile page. For most places 96px looks like a good compromise between the too > small 48px and the too big 128px. 128px isn't actually that big. It's still narrower than the left column on the discussion forums. (Remember to think of how it looks when someone has uploaded a new file, not when scaling a 48px image up 150%.) But if we're going to use 128px only on the profiles, I'd rather just use the 'biggest we use anywhere else' and save the extra format. > I'm not very concerned about the number of files tbh, It *is* something we--and IT--need to consider. We're talking about several hundred thousand files. > only a tiny minority will use a unique avatar anyway. That "tiny minority" is actually a little over 90%. Every user who registered at least a day before 2.4 came out has a custom avatar (we built identicons up to that point). That's around 155k users who _do_ have avatars, and only 10-15k who don't.
Target Milestone: --- → 2011Q2
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•13 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Do we have mock-ups or something for the questions.app changes? I didn't know > > it was going to change visually that much for 2.5. Currently I do see a problem > > with anything bigger than 48px in the 'Solution Chosen' section. > > http://people.mozilla.com/~chowse/drop/sumo/questions/v3/ > > > 128px seems a bit too big for most places, but it would look quite nice on the > > profile page. For most places 96px looks like a good compromise between the too > > small 48px and the too big 128px. > > 128px isn't actually that big. It's still narrower than the left column on the > discussion forums. (Remember to think of how it looks when someone has uploaded > a new file, not when scaling a 48px image up 150%.) But if we're going to use > 128px only on the profiles, I'd rather just use the 'biggest we use anywhere > else' and save the extra format. The thing is that we won't just have 128px in vertical orientation, but also name, status info (especially considering Karma), etc., which would make many discussion boxes vertically bigger than necessary. phpBB for example allows for 90x90px by default > > I'm not very concerned about the number of files tbh, > > It *is* something we--and IT--need to consider. We're talking about several > hundred thousand files. > > > only a tiny minority will use a unique avatar anyway. > > That "tiny minority" is actually a little over 90%. > > Every user who registered at least a day before 2.4 came out has a custom > avatar (we built identicons up to that point). That's around 155k users who > _do_ have avatars, and only 10-15k who don't. Okay, but isn't that a differnt issue? Most of those people have never intentionally choosen an avatar. Perhaps we should look into how to convert them to the current uniform avatar. Or we find another way, to get rid of that unnecessary data. But I don't think that it should influence a decision for the future.
Comment 5•13 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #4) > The thing is that we won't just have 128px in vertical orientation, but also > name, status info (especially considering Karma), etc., which would make many > discussion boxes vertically bigger than necessary. OK, I see what you're getting at. > phpBB for example allows for > 90x90px by default What phpBB does, however, doesn't much concern me. We don't use their themes :) > > Every user who registered at least a day before 2.4 came out has a custom > > avatar (we built identicons up to that point). That's around 155k users who > > _do_ have avatars, and only 10-15k who don't. > > Okay, but isn't that a differnt issue? Most of those people have never > intentionally choosen an avatar. Perhaps we should look into how to convert > them to the current uniform avatar. Or we find another way, to get rid of that > unnecessary data. But I don't think that it should influence a decision for the > future. The thing is: it's all just png image data. We can't really tell the difference between a custom avatar and an identicon. We can make no effort to fill in existing avatars with larger copies, waiting until people upload a new one. If we do that, tell contributors to about it, then wait 3 months, we could erase all avatars that only have the 48px copy. That will undoubtedly erase some non-identicons but most likely not from any remotely active users who care.
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•13 years ago
|
||
Well, there are probably several solutions to that problem. 1. It looks like the identicons were called avatar-[numer].png. We could just filter for them and replace them (if that schema is correct indeed) 2. We could remove avatar data for everyone who has not logged-in since November 30th, chances are they are not very active on SUMO and didn't have a personal avatar anyway. and probably a few other ways, but this bug should be about what do do in the future actually, and there, I don't see issues with too many people going for a unique avatar.
Comment 7•13 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #6) > Well, there are probably several solutions to that problem. > > 1. It looks like the identicons were called avatar-[numer].png. We could just > filter for them and replace them (if that schema is correct indeed) They all are :) Tiki stored files in the database. We named every avatar "avatar-###.png" during the 2.4 release. > 2. We could remove avatar data for everyone who has not logged-in since > November 30th, chances are they are not very active on SUMO and didn't have a > personal avatar anyway. That works for me if it works for you. Of course, going back to the original issue, none of this negates the fact that we do need to *care* when we decide to double or triple or quadruple the number of files we're storing for avatars.
Updated•13 years ago
|
Target Milestone: 2011Q2 → 2011Q3
Updated•13 years ago
|
Target Milestone: 2011Q3 → ---
Reporter | ||
Comment 9•11 years ago
|
||
Let's revisit this. Now that our profile pages are so much richer, the tiny image of the avatar is almost comical. A quick check of posted questions shows that normal users don't set an avatar at all, only contributors care, so the scaling issue should be fine. We should increase the maximum size to 1MB, save the originals and sample down to 150px for the profile and 96px in the forums and questions. This should be significantly easier now that we use avatar.png for the default one. I'd suggest that we use existing avatars as they are and contributors will upload new ones as they see fit.
Priority: -- → P4
Whiteboard: u=user c=account p= s=2013.18
Target Milestone: --- → 2013Q3
Comment 10•11 years ago
|
||
Here is what we decided. 1- Change AVATAR_SIZE in settings.py to 256. All new uploaded avatars will be resized to 256x256. 2- Possibly adjust MAX_AVATAR_FILE_SIZE in settings.py if necessary. 3- Set the height and width in CSS/LESS everywhere we use an avatar. We can start off leaving them the current size everywhere and then start making them bigger where it makes sense. The profile page should have a bigger size (maybe 128x128?) for sure. 4- Replace the current default/fallback avatar with one that is 256x256. I think that's all? 2pts to be extra careful we don't break any layouts.
Whiteboard: u=user c=account p= s=2013.18 → u=user c=account p=2 s=2013.19
Updated•11 years ago
|
Component: Knowledge Base Software → Users and Groups
Comment 11•11 years ago
|
||
One thing that could be done with this is to enable retina support. Places where we use the avatar at less than 128x128 can use the double resolution version, and it will be shiny and beautiful. Since we are doing the image resizing in CSS and not baking the images on the server, I think we will get this for free.
Reporter | ||
Comment 12•11 years ago
|
||
Yeah, great idea, as long as it doesn't add too much to the dev time (which I assume it won't). Let me know if I'm wrong, otherwise: Yes to insanely amazing retina images :)
Reporter | ||
Comment 14•11 years ago
|
||
Pushing to next sprint, since we are focusing on Q3 goals in this short sprint.
Whiteboard: u=user c=account p=2 s=2013.19 → u=user c=account p=2 s=2013.20
Comment 16•11 years ago
|
||
We are moving to Gravatar. See Bug 918854
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•