| • MZMcBride | |
| Feb 16 2015, 8:54 PM |
| F3318561: Screen Shot 2016-02-06 at 7.16.50 PM.png | |
| Feb 7 2016, 3:18 AM |
| F54592: Screen_Shot_2015-03-03_at_9.14.45_PM.png | |
| Mar 4 2015, 2:35 AM |
The sizes of avatars look fine on comments on tasks in regular displays, but they would benefit higher-resolution images on hi-DPI screens.
Previous description:
If we're going to have avatars, they should not be so small as to be awkward and depressing (currently 50x50px). GitHub's sizes seem much better.
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resolved | • mmodell | T89675 Phabricator avatars should have high definition version for HD displays | |||
| Resolved | • mmodell | T120013 Next Phabricator Upgrade - 2016-02-18 | |||
| Resolved | • mmodell | T122556 Figure out what upstream "Can Edit Task Policies" policy deprecation means for our Spaces/ACL setup | |||
| Resolved | • DStrine | T123317 Report to TPG on new Phabricator Functionality | |||
| Resolved | • csteipp | T125104 Evaluate the feasibility of phasing out the Phabricator Security extension | |||
| Resolved | • ksmith | T127019 Plan announcement of new major phabricator upgrade |
We should get someone on Commons to go take a nice high resolution photo of a Psyduck.
Wait a minute...
I didn't feel any symptoms of depression because of these avatars, and I didn't feel any urge to see bigger avatars. The current size is enough to bring basic visual identification; it is enough to identify the avatars you recognize.
Anyway, this is probably a very subjective request and discussion. Upstream might be interested in the argument or not for probably equally subjective reasons. If someone wants to try...
MZ, do you find the *on-screen physical size* depressing, or is it that they look bad on a hi-DPI display because they're half the screen density one would want?
Is the size too small in some specific area such as comments or user pages? The sizes look fine to me on comments on tasks, though I would love higher-resolution images on hi-DPI screens.
Basically my reaction is along the lines of "Jesus, Phabricator, it's 2015, either support avatars or don't, but 50px is insanely small."
(I zoom in a lot and use a large monitor.)
Next to comments, the images are passable. Though I'd probably personally prefer @Nemo_bis' solution of disabling avatars or perhaps getting rid of custom avatars and one of those colorful shapes auto-generated images or something similarly silly. I think custom avatars (beyond maybe a solid color choice or auto-generated) are more hassle than they're worth.
My gripe was mostly about profile pages.
Alright, in this case the problem is not only about resizing the avatar in the profile page, but to move it to the content area, where there is space to grow. In the current locations, increasing the size of the avatar implies oversizing the elements where they are embedded.
I don't think the avatar's size are problematic enough as for having a discussion here. After several months of use, I find them good enough to distinguish users easily, which is the main point.
I propose to decline this task here. If someone wants to discuss this topic, doing it upstream will be more productive.
It's fine, as in it's not terribly harmful, but it's not really very helpful either. It fragments the discussion, though it does reduce the noise in upstream's tracker. Personally I don't see this issue as being very important. IMO avatars are perfect as-is. For profile pages it would be nice to support larger images but this doesn't seem very important or likely to be widely used.
User and project profile images are now 200x200px at HEAD in the upstream, and should display at full resolution on retina displays. You may also use the "Blurb" section of your profile to present additional photography.
Nice. Thanks for this, 200px is definitely better than 50px. I'm still hoping for SVG support one day. :-)