Avatar Icon Sizes

[Unition]

Hey furries,

Recently I screwed up by accidentally disabling avatar upload size, which prompted a few of you to upload massive avatars.
I've since corrected this, but then I figured, why not have bigger avatars?

Here's our current avatar size - 100x100:



But why not a little bigger? - 150x150:



MACRO SIZED - 200x200:


Clearly any bigger and we're going to start running into table breakage and so on.  But I'd also like to hear the community's opinions on what size avatars should be, and why.  Technical reasons especially - if you have a smaller screen and that big image is taking up a lot of real estate it's going to make reading the forums difficult.

[Selkit]

200x200 please, Uni. 100x100 is a postage-stamp at my screen resolution. That, and hey. Maximum boot-cup 'o otter potential. It's good. Or at least that appears to be a gum-boot with an otter in it, anyways.

[Tai]

100 x 100 for me, it is easier to view and doesn't take up a lot of space on the screen on small devices like cell phones.

[zenia]

200x200 is a bit too big, but 150x150 is nice.

[Kitten]

200x200 is a bit too big, but 150x150 is nice.

I agree with Zenia, I like 150x150

[Renwaldo]

Aw, it's an otter in a can.

[zenia]

Aw, it's an otter in a can.

Looks like a Wellington to me!

[Unition]

I don't know what you guys are talking aboot.

So far people are fairly split on the matter, I notice.

[Acco]

Personally, don't care. 100x100 is more than enough to discern who's who based on icon. :)

[Buddy]

I wouldn't mind 150x150 easier to work with

[Carthage]

200x200 please, Uni. 100x100 is a postage-stamp at my screen resolution.

Out of curiosity, what's your screen resolution?

100x100 is the average size of avatar on the forums I frequent. You don't really need any more than that to distinguish yourself. 150x150 is a fair compromise though, for the folks who would like a little bit more to work with. Anything bigger than that would just be an eyesore.

I can certainly understand why people want larger avatars. When you get nice art drawn of you, you want to show it off. But the avatar is only there to be a colourful point to help distinguish each poster from the others. We don't need full-sized portraits to do that.

[Selkit]

Out of curiosity, what's your screen resolution?

3800x1200. Two HD+ monitors. On the larger of the two, the forum icons literally are the size of a postage stamp. :P

[Zen]

150x150 is pretty damn large. I'd agree that should be maximum, although I echo Carthage's sentiments.

Also, I run 1920x1080 on a 23" WS LED monitor.

[Carthage]

3800x1200. Two HD+ monitors.

And just how many people on this forum do you think run that kind of resolution? ;)

200x200 might look great on your screen, and it might even look great on the screens of a few others here, but for probably 99% of the users of this board it's gonna look really stupid.

If the maximum avatar size is to be increased then a compromise is going to have to be reached. 150x150 is still pretty big, without making anyone feel like the avatars are trying to take over the world.

[H u nn Y]

Why not just give people the option of choosing between which they prefer more out of the top three choices in size?
(should be accessible in the 'Modify Profile' section, an example would be like the Display Pictures on MSN Messenger, where you can change the size on the main contacts window)
(though there only was three suggested too, lol)