Conversation

Isnā€™t it kinda strange that avatars used to be much larger when the internet was slower, and now all we get is the tiniest circle drgn_woozy

4
0
0

@volpeon Hmmmm but monitor resolutions also increased. I think the resolution of the avatars stayed roughly the same? neocat_thonk

1
0
0

@catraxx I checked a forum I used to use on Web Archive and avatars there were 120x120 in 2011. Here Iā€™m getting 46x46, Bluesky is 42x42, Twitter is 40x40.

1
0
0

@volpeon Were they really much larger though, or did we just have less available screen real estate? After all, back when the Internet was slower, 1024x768 counted as a high resolution screen. Try opening a window and setting it to a size of 1024x768 pixels. šŸ™‚

1
0
0

@mkj I checked a forum I used to use on Web Archive and avatars there were 120x120 in 2011. Here Iā€™m getting 46x46, Bluesky is 42x42, Twitter is 40x40.

1
0
0

@volpeon neofox_thonk maybe iceshrimp still has the ā€œclient settingsā€ -> ā€œgeneralā€ -> ā€œshow square avatarsā€ setting

1
0
0

@Johann150 Iā€™m talking about a general phenomenon, not my instance neofox_pat

0
0
0

@volpeon @mkj the images are helpfully larger still

my pfp is 640x640, yours is 400x400

0
0
0
Missing media descriptions
Show content

@volpeon I mean it does look a little large at 120 ... but would still be ok maybe.

1
0
0

@catraxx Of course the UI would have to have a design that works better with such a size. neocat_boop

1
0
0

@volpeon Yeah i know, was just trying it out to see if i even like it. I think it would be ok. I wonder is text flow around could actually be nice for it. No one seems to use it much anymore.

0
0
0

@volpeon yuuuuup. so much space on forums was dedicated to YOU and EXPRESSING YOURSELF. big avatars, signatures filled with the things you like and the things you were doing.

also thinking about the way twitter and youtube let you upload custom profile background images and change text and link colors and such and all that is gone now.

0
0
0