Picture Icons for Members

Its bad enough we can't have smilies but why can't we have small picture icons under our member names?

Like the size of this one...

^_^

Ya, I just happen to read about the smiley option and this... after I posted this. So let me rephrase this....
I think name icons add a nice personal touch and I bet alot of DG members would love this option.
Puleese Dave! ^_^

OH, and why do we have to have this ugly edit notication when we edit
a message?



This message was edited Oct 10, 2009 9:18 AM

Personally I like the clean simple look we have here--I've been on some other sites where everyone has a picture like that and there are emoticons and various other stuff everywhere and I get a headache just looking at them. Plus I'd rather have the focus on the plant/garden pictures that people post in the threads. If personal pics are allowed I would want to see them small so that they don't detract attention from pics posted as part of the threads--definitely smaller than the one posted above.

As far as the edit notification--I think it's so others reading the thread know that you edited something. In some cases it doesn't matter, but in some cases people who posted after you may have responded to something that you edited out, so it's helfpul to know that a post was edited.

right on ecrane 3. I query things I am interested in. If I wanted to see personal pictures I would ask the person for them. I personally don't want my stuff spread all over the internet.

Same with the edit notification. ditto

Jeanette


Same with the happy faces.

This message was edited Oct 10, 2009 8:58 AM

I agree because I like the cleaner look.

Okay.
So do the photos people post in their messages (below), the big photo on the top of the page, side bar options and colorful advertizements on the right give you a headache too?

Might.

I'm with the "clean look" crowd. The ads were bugging me, so I turned them off, and if I'm curious about what a member looks like, I look to see if they have a picture posted over here: http://davesgarden.com/community/memberlist/album.php

And for me, one of the beauties of Dave's is to focus on the plant pics--so no, those don't bother me one bit!

If you want to see what a member looks like just click on their name and scroll down. If they have posted a picture it will be there. These are the same photos that are in the members album at the above link. I agree with keeping the threads clean of avatars, blinking things etc.

Well I don't get the so called "clean look".
To me all text is boring.
I guess I never considered little pictures
of members faces or flowers unwanted, messy or annoying.
To me those things are cheerful and welcome.
To each his own I guess.

I think with Dave's being so large an so many reponses on some threads photo icons would make it appear very cluttered. I do belong to another garden forum that does allow them & I love mine and it is a quick way to recognize who is posting, but the number of members is much smaller there.

I am with you CR, I think little pics under names make it more personal and shows more of the poster's personality. But I think it is a lost cause. This has come up before and is always voted down.

And looking down this thread, you are right. So much text is boring and not entertaining at all. A bit of color and splash would be much more fun.

Kell, I don't think we care about pictures here and there, but it sounds like, and maybe that was not the intent, that CR wanted personal, i.e. like driver's license pic, ugh, under the names. No, no, no.

Or, maybe she meant an ID picture like a frog, or the swan she posted, altho I thought that was big, but something you used all the time, rather than different each time??

Not sure what she meant. I thought the first. DL ID.

Drivers License????
OMG!
Kell you're right...lost cause.
Never heard so many weird opinions in my whole life.
Forget I said anything.

LOL, don't want to explain what you meant? I am curious. We aren't mind readers. I kind of like the frog idea where you use the same picture for, like your signature. LOL But, I think I like the occasional picture better. Altho, I don't think anyone complained about it to begin with. Why didn't you just do it and not bring it up?

I'm totally blind and use a talking computer to read. The clean look on DG definitely works best
for me. The clutter is difficult for visually impaired.

I am able to do smilies, though. ^_^
~Susan

edited to clarify.

This message was edited Oct 14, 2009 11:56 AM

Guess we did not realize that. Thanks Susan

Thanks for taking it into consideration. :-)

I do like the clean look as is, but that's what I am used to.
I am sure CR was thinking more on the lines of a small avatar like the tasteful one of blue forget-me-nots used for the DG members that have passed away. I like the way those stand out so anyone new that comes along knows that this member is no longer here. If everyone had their own, it can look cluttered IMHO. And imagine the increased headache for admin when folks may choose inappropriate or objectionable images, it's bad enough with all the edits they have to contend with for threads. If DG ever reconsiders, perhaps having assigned small avatars for subscribed members, maybe a different type of bloom depending on length of membership, or number of posts or number of PF contributions or something along that line. (by the way, it seems that the PF Uber program is no longer updated according to those PF contributions, guess that was an early program when DG first started.)

I like the clean, uncluttered look as well. I hope DG doesn't start allowing those "jumping bean" type icons (I don't know what the right name is) but I joined another group a couple of years ago and it seems like every single post had one, two or more little funny face icons jumping and moving about ... made me crazy! I am getting old and like things calm/serene and easy!

What are avatars? Is that what the little small pictures are called that Cottage_Rose is asking to allow under our names? That wouldn't bother me at all ... I just don't want a lot of animated, moving icons jumping up and down on the pages!

I'm all for clean and uncluttered. Anyone can post a photo of
themselves on their Member page that others can easily see
if it's important to them.

Text is boring? People come to threads to chat and not all
have time to be on DG all day. The more clutter the slower
the download, and there are folks who are still on dialup.

Yes, definition from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_%28computing%29

For people on "dial up" it would take too long to load when there are avatars, wall paper etc. Think of websites you happen onto with all that "stuff" that, even on high speed, take a while to load. It's aggravating to have to "wait' to get to the information.

My 2 cents... I like it clean as it is now.


This is why God gave us an imagination. We don't need pictures to see pictures of some things.


Hap

LOL, Hap, besides, our imaginations make better pictures most of the time.

Jeanette

Mine does. LOL

Love your personal picture icon Cottage Rose !
Yes, I also think that an avatar could be a nice addition to our member names.
Considering smileys; as we all know real communication in live consist only for a small part in words (text) and the major part in facial expression, intonation of the voice, body language etc..In that sense smileys used in a proper way can really be helpful..
In the other sites I'm frequenting they have never been disturbing me, on the contrary it adds a personal and friendly touch.. ^_^

I completely agree with Bonitin.

I think it may have something to do with space. Photos can take up a whole lot of memory and from personal experience, threads with tons of pictures can take much longer to upload than those without....especially for those users that have dial up connections....one thing I have noticed is there is no actual "delete" capability, so that means pretty much everything posted stays in the server memory....that is a bunch of info stored.

You are so right. I was just getting ready to post the same thing. It hasn't been that long ago that I had dial up that I still remember sitting for so long waiting for that stuff to download only to see what it was and fuming over it.

Hopefully Dave has decided against it. Also right about the storage issue.

Jeanette

I don't think Avatars would take up much space. They are usually not bigger than 20kb so that would not be a problem for dial-ups. Nor would smileys be I guess.
I have been on dial-up myself some years ago, and the only thing that caused the slowness were the actual pictures posted..

I think it is really neat that anyone posting on a thread can add a picture, especially if it helps with an ID, etc, and it would seem that anyone can add an icon or avatar to their signature, so I guess I am missing the question here.

"I think it is really neat that anyone posting on a thread can add a picture, especially if it helps with an ID"
I absolutely agree and everyone on this site I guess!
But the point is that I only wanted to refute the objection of allowing avatars or smileys because of them causing the slow down of computers on dial-up.

Bonitin, I really have no idea if the addition of avatars themselves would slow things down anymore or not...it was merely an observation....what I do not know about websites and their operations is why there are so many books out there....grin

Here is what The Dave had to say in 2007 on the topic of avatars. http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/779308/ in this post http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/p.php?pid=4085286

I hope he doesn't change his mind for all of the above reasons in this thread.

It seems to me that the post of lo1 on the 14th should settle the whole question.

Jeanette

Think we cross posted. Jeanette