Can avatars be made optional?

Reversed...whew! I forget how photo driven I really am.


From Firefox:

A way to see which images are blocked is to click the favicon (Site Identification icon) on the left side of the location bar [here on DG it is the gray "world"] and click the "More Information" button. This will open the Security tab of the Page Info window (also accessible via Tools > Page Info). Go to the Media tab of that Page Info window. Select the first image and scroll down though the list with the Down arrow. If an image is grayed and there is a check-mark in the box Block Images from... then remove that mark to unblock the images from that domain.


Now if we could only figure out how to solve your problem, pirl.

I rebooted often enough that now I can post photos! Thanks for thinking of me FOTV.

Ha ha ha

That is an evil laugh.....

Any hope of having the avatars being made optional?

pirl, there are still several things that are ahead of this issue priority-wise. And since the avatars are no larger than the thumbnail photos that you see in almost every thread, I'm not sure I can make a good argument for them being a distraction unless we're also advocating that we take away all thumbnails...and I doubt we want to do that.

Having downloaded AdBlock Plus I have the ability to right-click the avatars and

"Block Element" and no longer see them. This has to be done with each

and every one, I think, but it might be worth it.

I enjoy the avatars, but agree there should be a place in Preferences to disable them. I used to belong to a photography site that allowed animated avatars.....talk about distracting!

I just read through this thread, as I don't like the avatars either, especially the 'mugshots.' However I have gotten used to them on other sites (Facebook, for one), and will eventually get used to them here, too.

Someone posted a while ago that Dave never wanted them... His new site is so full of junk- avatars, quotes, animated emoticons, etc- It makes DG seem very restrained. Bravo for that!

Emoticons and avatars are optional at the site you named.

Avatars are optional here, too. I have chosen not to have one.

I don't have one either! Isn't that a shocker?

My eyes simply do not get along with them so I stick to a few threads I follow where I don't have to endure them.

Just to make it clear, a person does not have to view the avatar of any other person on the other site you mentioned. Emoticons are also optional.

So it comes down to a quote. I can handle that, not avatars.

How can they be turned off?

Is there any hope or do I just wave good-bye?

Wow! We just jumped from Nov 24, 2013 to Dec 27, 2015, skipping over the entire year of 2014. This new forum update, that has caused so much excitement and consternation, would have been an opportunity for DG to install a user Preference to hide or show Avatars. So hopefully Terry or some other Admin person can take a second look at this "issue".

I suspect that a new User-Optional-Avatar-Visibility feature would not be trivially simple to add and, depending on the nature of the software development system used to maintain this site, it just might require quite a few hours of development time to produce and debug.

However, I do have a suggestion to make all the "default avatars" go away. Simply replace the default 71 x 71 pixel JPG picture of a round-head-and-shoulders silhouette with a 71 x 71 pixel JPG picture of nothing but light background color. That should be easy to implement.

Just out of curiosity, what development tools are used to maintain this site? Or, is that proprietary information? I assume it is not Dreamweaver. Is that a correct assumption?

ZM

This message was edited Dec 27, 2015 2:44 PM

This message was edited Dec 27, 2015 2:54 PM

I would think the site makeover is being done by a web development business/company hired by the owners of Dave's Garden. Much of the code is custom and I doubt it is done with an over-the-counter program. With the all the fixes and changes now constantly being made to ensure convenient navigation avatars are or should be the last priority on the list! Many people like having theirs or they wouldn't put them in. Making them a viewing option would have to be a choice made in how you set up your preferences in your settings.

Zen_Man - I've been more than patient and it hasn't been of any use. It just can't be all that difficult to do. My friend, Zuzu (who had been the rose queen at DG), asked the owner of another site to make it optional knowing I'd never be posting if I had to see avatars of Peter and his plumerias, Rhonda and her roses, or Tess and her tropicals (with apologies to all Peters, Rhondas and Tesses - all fictional) a thousand times. Even the dimwitted do get to memorize who like what plants! Anyhow, the other site had it done in a day!

June - obviously my request is THE LAST PRIORITY ON THEIR LIST and after three years I'd be hopelessly naive to believe they'd ever listen to me...or the many people who agreed with me. Clearly the voices of subscribers aren't priorities. 'Bye, DG.

Just saying that your very strong personal objection to avatars has nothing to do with getting navigation and posting issues resolved for all the people who have requests and useful suggestions to deal with those issues. In the "olden days" here Dave wrote all the code, decided what would and would not be regardless of people's preferences or objections and his word was law unless he actually agreed with an objection or idea. It is no longer a one man show. It's a corporate web site.

...and more and more people are drifting away.

Hi June,

Amazon is a corporate web site. Like modern automobile factories, it is fully automated. Dave's Garden may no longer be a one man show, but it isn't a lot more than that. Still building everything by hand. Which is why a simple request, like Arlene's request to make avatar visibility a Preferences item, can take years here. Another site could implement that in a day, even if it weren't a "corporate web site", but just using better software.

I do feel sorry for Terry, because she is caught in the middle of this. I also feel sorry for Arlene, because the avatars bother her so. I feel sorry for the site programmers, because they don't have better tools to do their job.

It is ironic that this last improvement cycle for the site has annoyed so many users and even angered some to the point of deciding not to renew their subscriptions. The improvements were meant to please the users and not anger them. But making all users be involuntary beta testers is not a good plan. And the advertisers see all this and have their opinions.

In my opinion, if it is at all feasible to please Arlene and others who don't like the avatars, this site redesign would be a good time to make avatar visibility a Preferences setting. That depends on whether the available software development tools make that a reasonable task. I don't mind the avatars myself, but I respect others who don't like them.

ZM

Zen_Man, I am in full agreement with you and appreciate your clear, concise summary. You hit all the nails on the head!

My husband was a professional programmer for years and one who was instrumental in developing online banking. In those days you just had to develop a web site that worked on computers. These days folks want everything to function on their computer, their phone, their tablet and their Smart Watch! It's a challenge.

I honestly couldn't tell you what tech/dev tools are used on the site (I'm not a tech person, and never have been involved in that side of the site.)

I can ask them about the avatar issue, although I would point out that it is easy enough for every member to create an avatar that suits you, whether it's as subtle as a shaded box, an innocuous photo of a flower, a pet, or something else, or a graphic of some sort), or a photo or graphic image of yourself :-).

Considering the vast number of avatars in most forums and threads it seems that the majority of people enjoy having them or at least don't object. Same on Facebook. I actually enjoy seeing a face or a pet or a favorite flower. Different strokes for different folks!

Hi June,

Oddly, someone objected to the use of mugshots as an avatar. To me, face pictures are an appropriate use, although I don't choose to display my "mug". Maybe I should use a picture of a coffee mug. Maybe not.

I think it is unfortunate that we have lost Pirl, and possibly others, over this site's inability to make viewing avatars a user Preferences option. It is sad that the site maintainers couldn't respond to this in over two years. Two days should have been plenty of time.

ZM

Zen_Man - I only participate in a few threads and enjoy seeing the faces of folks I've "known" since 2006. I think the "preferences" choices will improve over time but right now navigation and other key issues really are an understandable priority. I detested it when Dave created and allowed a yellow smiley face and too many posts became peppered with them to the point where the post became unreadable!

I can't believe that DG was having issues in 2013 also...must not have been as major as the current ones.

Hi Terry,

Yes, it is easy enough to create an avatar here that suits you, within reasonable limits. However, the issue under discussion was a request to have a User Preferences Option to hide the avatars. That would allow an individual user to not see any avatars, without interfering with other people's ability to have and see avatars.

If you don't mind, (and they don't mind) ask the tech people what tools they have for their use. I am curious about that, because some DG site maintenance problems have seemed rather counter-intuitive. It might help us all to understand what problems the site maintainers have to deal with. Some users here may have some understanding of the tools used to maintain websites, and such knowledge could contribute to greater rapport between users and DG.

ZM

I will ask them :-)

I have been watching this thread since it popped up recently. I have nothing new to say other than YES, I would like to have a preference setting to hide avatars. I have found myself blocking a number of them and really... to just be able to hide them all from view would be nice. If I want to see my Loon, I can just look at my own pictures. :)

Thanks for the support, Chillybean, but today my subscription ends, after 10 years here. I do hope avatars will be optional in the future for everyone.

Thanks. On an unrelated issue, as you can see from your last message, and many other messages that have tried to use nested Quotes, or multiple Quotes distributed throughout a message, the Quote feature needs work.

ZM

Terry, I like seeing the avatars, but I think it should be optional, is it that difficult to do?

Goodbye Arlene. You have to be the most dedicated gardener with I must say great results, I know! I will miss all your great photos of your beautiful garden.

Thanks, Kell! Very kind of you to comment. We've had a fun time on DG but it's over now.

Arlene, I don't think it has to be over, we oldtimers just need to push for what we want, and it really isn't too much to ask for a simple change or choice.

Arlene, I'm sorry that DG didn't do something about this. I think over two years to wait is way too long. I hope all goes well for you.

Thanks, Elsie.

Sorrry, Josephine. Somehow I missed your post.

I pushed and pushed while many others also agreed with me but to no avail.