Why not avatars? [Answered]

[Cloud Mountain]

The topic speaks for itself.

[thistlechick]

Yes, I see from the threads on the decision not to use avatars that the reasons were not given why the decision was made by the admins behind-the-scenes...

Essentially, we feel that in our booky-text environment that we should keep it simple and text-only .... the arguments have been made that avatars would help people quickly identify members and their posts... I personally object to that reasoning because it promotes laziness and inattention to detail.

Other arguments against avatars are that they increase the download time of our site (which really isn't an issue because images don't decrease the speed of loading text) ... i think the most compelling argument made was that it makes our forums look tacky and garish.

I hope this helps answer your question... though, when it got right down to it, it was simply a majority of admins preferred not to allow avatars (as there are admins who support the idea).

[Cloud Mountain]

TC, thanks much for the clear summary and explanation. So be it. Still, in phpBB the avatars by default are limited to 6MB 80x80 and can easily be smaller as well, so download time is not an issue. It's the identification issue that I'm most concerned about. I'm forever mixing people up. people learn and remember too many names, but a wolf howling up to the moon makes more sense to me than earthcalling (just an example David, nothing meant by it.) the notion of LV being text based is a diverting argument because we refer to figures all of the time, even allowing them in posts, AND we promote CD cover creation. As for call LV (or the Forums) text-based, that's phooey all the way. LV is aural based. And what about those insipid smilies or the other euphemism "Emoticons." it's all silly silly. but i respect the decision and will leave it at that. Again, thanks ,uch ?CM