Mandi...re: the increased avatars size...

[mirage1]

I love the columns to the left, but I don't like having to scroll farther to get to the "meat" (the actual content of the posts)... so increasing the avatar sizes is a change for the worse, imo. Especially if we're still going to allow sig line posts.

The thing is in the old forums I could see like 25 posts (at least, post titles, which were often "nt") on my screen at a time and get a pretty good idea of what's going on in the thread. Now, at best I can only see three or four and that's WITH the small avatars. If everyone increases their avatar size to the size yours is, now I'm down to just TWO posts on a screen and 50x the scrolling to be able to see what's been said.

Just wanting to get this out there in case I'm not the only person who feels this way. I posted it inside another thread but I wanted to make sure it was heard. :eek:

[Storymama]

Could you tell me more about the layout you're using? I didn't realize that was happening, so it must be unique to the layout I'm using. I see a post of a certain height regardless of the content - so a taller/wider avatar doesn't make a short post any different than, say, a post with no avatar at all.

[Sarah]

I love the columns to the left, but I don't like having to scroll farther to get to the "meat" (the actual content of the posts)... so increasing the avatar sizes is a change for the worse, imo. Especially if we're still going to allow sig line posts.



But I *think* that the panel box where the avatars are is a fixed size. Moving over there from on top just created a bit of space that we can fill with image instead of nothing.

No? :hmmm:

[mirage1]

Could you tell me more about the layout you're using? I didn't realize that was happening, so it must be unique to the layout I'm using. I see a post of a certain height regardless of the content - so a taller/wider avatar doesn't make a short post any different than, say, a post with no avatar at all.I am in linear, so maybe that's it?

Here are examples. In the first one the avatars are the former size and there are (at best) three threads on a page, if they basically post just a one-liner. In the second you can see that your post with the larger avatar takes up more space vertically... Mine is about the same as yours, but that's because my extra text added more space, but with yours there's just a lot of empty areas. With the larger avatar size there's never going to be more than 2 threads viewable on a page... it just makes a challenging thing more challenging! :embarass:

Edited to say I changed those photos to private--I just don't want anyone chasing me down over here at YAAPS! If anyone wants to see them, let me know.

(for what it's worth, I should have done the same thing I did in the House thread and made a guest pass to post here--then people who were already here could have seen the photos, but people who might be paying attention to my Flickr photostream wouldn't have been led HERE. ~sigh~ hindsight...)

[Storymama]

Can you give me your Flickr account link? Flickr shows the inline photos as unavail. And we are definitely in different views, so that's probably the source of the problem.

[retro]

haha...your photos are currently unavailable...fickr is a fickle bitch isn't she.

I view in threaded and I am not having that scroll problem. Just fyi

[anastasia]

But I *think* that the panel box where the avatars are is a fixed size. Moving over there from on top just created a bit of space that we can fill with image instead of nothing.

No? :hmmm:

I'm viewing in hybrid mode, and for me, that panel box does change size depending on the size of the avatar or whether there is an avatar at all. With no avatar and minimal text in the post, it takes up much less vertical space than with an avatar. A small avatar like Margie's makes it slightly less "tall" than a large one like Mandi's. (I'm comparing the first two posts in this thread to each other; seems like based on the amount of text they have, those panels would be the same height if their avatars were the same size but as it is Mandi's is just a tad taller.)

[mirage1]

Can you give me your Flickr account link? Flickr shows the inline photos as unavail. And we are definitely in different views, so that's probably the source of the problem.Sorry, they should be fixed now...I'd set them to private (silly me) for, privacy, LOL.

[mirage1]

haha...your photos are currently unavailable...fickr is a fickle bitch isn't she.

I view in threaded and I am not having that scroll problem. Just fyiNo, it's not Flickr, she is an angel, she just did what I asked, LOL.

[Sarah]

I'm viewing in hybrid mode, and for me, that panel box does change size depending on the size of the avatar or whether there is an avatar at all. With no avatar and minimal text in the post, it takes up much less vertical space than with an avatar. A small avatar like Margie's makes it slightly less "tall" than a large one like Mandi's. (I'm comparing the first two posts in this thread to each other; seems like based on the amount of text they have, those panels would be the same height if their avatars were the same size but as it is Mandi's is just a tad taller.)

Weird, I'm in hybrid too, and they're always the same. I wonder if it might be a browser AND viewing mode combination? Unlikely. :hmmm:

[Sarah]

I am in linear, so maybe that's it?

Here are examples.

heee, I can see one, now, but not both.

[anastasia]

Weird, I'm in hybrid too, and they're always the same. I wonder if it might be a browser AND viewing mode combination? Unlikely. :hmmm:

Huh. Maybe. :dunno: I'm using Firefox on a MacBook so if it is that, I'm surely in the minority. :spinning:

[Storymama]

I still can't see the second image for comparison . . .

[mirage1]

I still can't see the second image for comparison . . .I'm sorry! I thought that changing the photo privacy settings would work but I had to recopy the links, too... sheesh, I'm making it complicated!

[Storymama]

I don't mind keeping up with it, it's okay! I really want to see what it is that is different in your view. It's worth using the available screen real estate as efficiently as possible, I think.