I really don't see why we can't make the usernames larger. I think that would look kickass. Or maybe we could have another one of those dumbass items enabling you to have a 16x16 minipic. It would make your name bigger too. And it could be called e-peen.

____________________

Well, we *have* someone willing to code, but for some reason there's a problem with getting the willing to talk to those with access and vice-versa.

Also, that post had me srs lolling

____________________

> implying 16x16 minipics distracts from actual posts
> implying that there's something wrong with being able to use a standardized size

I'd understand if minipics were displayed next to every instance of your username. But no, it's only on the front page. So how does that distract from the content?

I really don't see what's wrong with it. Looks fine on Jul, they actually have a lot of UI related things right. A lot of things that I think could be useful here.

In fact, I miss several "pointless UI elements" that made Acmlmboard an Acmlmboard. Such as when celebration time meant rainbow colored usernames. Or when you could see what users were browsing particular forums or even threads specifically. Or, you could edit aspects of the UI in your profile instead of having to equip items from the itemshop. These are the kinds of things that make the board fun to be a part of, instead of stumbling around with what we currently have or don't have.

My support of 16x16 minipics also implies my acceptance of the responsibility to nuke shitty ones. I think both 11x11 and 16x16 should at least be supported somehow... like custom titles being supported for users above a certain postcount.

____________________

Posted by blackhole89

---

The problem with larger minipics is that they would stretch the page header beyond the size it needs to be.

---

So, you're talking an extra five pixels tall/wide. Per line. I've never seen that area taller than two lines tall, on a normal resolution. I mean, holy shit, is it really that bad? 135 more pixels?

Posted by blackhole89

---

Sure, it seems like a tiny and insignificant thing to argue about, but in the end, it's just a long string of those tiny and insignificant changes that each could easily be defended with a "why not" or "other somethings do it that way" that separate us from the utter annoyance that is your average larger-scale forum system these days.

---

I'm not asking you to implement captchas or flawed search methods, or ads in the middles of posts.

Posted by blackhole89

---

I fight such changes on principle because I see nothing to gain from larger minipics ("People could fit more on them!" might as well be used to argue for 400x400 avatars) and a lot to lose in the long term if such argumentation is accepted as valid for a particular change.

---

So, I must ask, what did you see to gain from minipics at all? They're pointless. But I like them. Also, you're comparing apples to oranges. the maximum impact from the change asked for is an extra 5px tall/wide in the page header only. You're comparing it to an extra 220x220 in the sidebar of every post who has 400x400 avatars, completely screwing up readability in such a drastic way you almost couldn't think about the comparison without your head blowing up into camel shit.

I argue the fact that you can fit more in them because you can't do shit with 121 pixels. Makes minipics pointless and more people would use the feature if they had more room to work with. 256 pixels is a standard. Far easier to make stuff and use available space. I mean, what good is a parking lot at a stadium if the spaces are all for motorcycles?

____________________

You analyze shit too much.

13x13 it is.

____________________