User Icon changes

[wide_worlds_joy]

Title:
User Icon changes

Area:
Styles

Summary:
Paid feature where the user can change the person icon next to their username.

Description:
Recently LJ implemented the ability to change the little icon next to a username site-wide. I'd like to see the same here, but with a few improvements.

First, free to paid accounts. It might just prompt people to buy a paid account.

Second, the image has to be hosted on another site, so it is not clogging up the servers of DW. Or an icon slot can be "sacrificed" to host it here.

Third, only small icons, 17x17 will be allowed.

This will be just a little thing to give some more color to DW. May pull some of LJ's customers over as well.

In execution it will look like this:

<a href='http://daven.dreamwidth.org/profile'><img src='http://www.rosequoll.com/lj/bdragon.gif' alt='userinfo' width='17' height='17' style='vertical-align:bottom;border:0;'></a><a href='http://daven.dreamwidth.org'><b>daven</b></a>

I got this from a lady who had this on LJ, and I think it's a cool idea.

Poll #5991 User Icon changes

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 85

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
11 (12.9%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
13 (15.3%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
47 (55.3%)

(I have no opinion)
14 (16.5%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Comments

[denise]

Just FYI, if this is implemented, the images would have to be hosted locally. Otherwise, there'd be nothing stopping someone from using (say) a 2000px by 2000px image for their userhead and disrupting things for everyone else!

[foxfirefey]

Another interesting exploit side effect of not being hosted locally would being able to track wherever your user head was appearing, even in locked posts, as browsers fetched the image from your server!

[azurelunatic]

And if it's pick-your-own, should probably be looked over by someone to make sure that they are not, at minimum, a staff-head lookalike.

[moonvoice]

I might be alone, but I never liked this feature over at Livejournal, and I found it made it very hard for me to tell easily and quickly who were LJ Staff, and who were just people who had gotten this nifty feature. I think for me personally, it's an extra degree of customisation that makes things more complicated in long comment threads.

[ariestess]

+1

I did some of the customization from rosequoll.com several years ago, but it was a pain to deal with after a while, and just looked horridly cluttered.

[dingsi]

+1

To me a different userhead means a different function/status, e.g. staff members, deleted journals, and the like. So if I could make out what they were supposed to be at all, they always made following comment threads more complicated for me.

[kyrielle]

This. I find them visually distracting, confusing, and annoying. I wish LJ had never done it. If it is implemented, I'd like a reader-level override to never see custom userheads - but I'd still rather see it not implemented.

[arethinn]

+1

It's cute and all, but can make it hard to quickly see who's who on a page.

[ratcreature]

I have to admit that I find these customized userheads on LJ horrible. Most of the time I can't make out what they are supposed to be because it is so tiny, and IMO they detract from a clean look of the page.

[azurelunatic]

I get a weird little jolt every time I see the userhead of someone in particular who I'm avoiding. Since it's a standard custom userhead that now a lot more people are using, this does make things somewhat unpleasant for me. It's not LJ's fault, but it is an opportunity for things like this to happen. And I can't really adblock it, because the userheads have the contextual hover menu, and they link to the profile.

So if it happens, it should have a viewer-side off-switch, usable for logged-in users and ... maybe even be settable by cookie for logged-out and accountless users in the same way that site scheme is. (Huh, now I wonder what happens with logged out users and ?style=mine.)

[noracharles]

Yes. I wouldn't mind users being able to set their own userheads, as long as I would never have to see them. I would only ever want to see the standard userheads. For me it would be okay if that were only in my style, since I use my style site-wide.

[cesy]

With an off-switch, so I could just see standard userheads, I wouldn't mind this.

[justhuman]

This, with an optional on/off switch. I find that I don't like them, and it clutters the reading, but enough people are using them, that saying no all together seems unfair.

[arethinn]

now I wonder what happens with logged out users and ?style=mine.

Don't they get site scheme? (overriding any other custom style, I mean, in the way "style=mine" normally does)

[ursamajor]

I agree with the previous posters - I feel like the userheads are too small to serve any useful purpose except for differentiating account type (staff vs. user, community, official. And if it's not well-done, it won't even do that.

[eruthros]

I understand why people like custom userheads and want to use them, but a lot of them are hard for me to parse in a page -- I find them confusing and can't track them easily (especially since, in my 1920x1200 laptop display, most of them are too small to be legible). I wouldn't object to dw using them, but I would like to have an opt-out option that would mean I could see just the standard userheads.

[musyc]

No, no, no, please. I'd only appreciate this suggestion if there was a way for me to block them entirely via a site-setting without having to rig some CSS up on my own. They're hideously ugly to my eyes. I cobbled bits into a Stylish sheet specifically to get rid of those on LJ, and I'd hate them here.

[wide_worlds_joy]

Yay, another suggestion of mine hated.

sigh

Bad night...

[denise]

Aw! It can be tough sometimes, I know, but I really appreciate each and every suggestion that comes through (ok, maybe not the ones that are four words long, three of which are one of George Carlin's seven deadly, but I digress). Just caring enough about DW to want to make a suggestion is a grand and glorious thing, and thank you :)

[the_shoshanna]

I'm -- not sure how to vote on this. Personally I dislike the custom userheads over on LJ; I find them cluttered and visually confusing and mostly ugly and they make it nearly impossible to identify staff immediately (uh, does LJ even use specific staff userheads the way DW does? I can't remember. But having custom userheads over here would tend to have that effect, because the staff ones could get lost in the clutter). I don't need or want a custom userhead in order to identify a specific individual (or be identified myself), that's what usernames are for.

But people sure do seem to like the damn things over on LJ. And if it were a paid feature here, that suggests it would bring in money as well as making some users happy. It would make me (and apparently others) grumpy. So yeah, an opt-out-of-ever-seeing-the-bloody-things switch would be greatly appreciated in that case. But then we get into options creep, right? Too many options makes the baby synecdochic cry.

I'm not sure I can argue forcefully against it. But I hope it doesn't happen (or that if it does, we can opt out of seeing them).

[azurelunatic]

They do: staff are the greenshirts. But only some staff? Or something like that.

[aedifica]

I voted no because I don't like them on LJ and would rather not see them here, but I wouldn't really mind them if I could easily turn them off--only I would want to be sure that turning them off wouldn't turn off the userheads that say "this is a staff journal" et al.

[erika]

Agreed.

[melannen]

I have to admit, my initial reaction to this is "OMG NO" because seeing one on LJ always makes my heart die a little - but then I remember that's because the implementation at LJ had some pretty horrible stuff going, including ethnic stereotypes.

So, uh, it might be cool to have a personalizable userhead? I would vote for something like an avatar-maker that let you pick from standard options (skin color, shirt color, hair, hats, glasses) than a standard set, or letting people upload their own, though.

Also, you probably already know this, but it is possible to set custom userheads in your own style by getting creative with styles. (I don't know how, but I see people do it. And, honestly, hate it, because the custom ones usually don't look at all like userheads - if this happened, I would want them to be at least as similar to standard-model userheads as the lj ones.)

[matgb]

So, uh, it might be cool to have a personalizable userhead? I would vote for something like an avatar-maker that let you pick from standard options (skin color, shirt color, hair, hats, glasses)

Oh, I like that idea. You're right that the LJ ones were problematic, especially the initial set, but if they were all custom built per person using a generator then that problem goes away (assuming the options are wide enough).

So yeah, changing my vote to 'with changes' and this is my change.

it is possible to set custom userheads in your own style by getting creative with styles. (I don't know how, but I see people do it

One of the most popular archive posts on my journal tells people how if they're interested.

And, honestly, hate it, because the custom ones usually don't look at all like userheads

I got most of mine from other sources, and all were designed, by various people, for use on LJ, so they are at least little heads &c. I do get why people dislike them, but I do like them and, well, my journal. I do have a link in the footer of each post to a plain layout with no personalisations for people, and there's always style mine/light/site.

[lorax]

I'm going to go with "with changes" and add to the voices that say yes, but with a universal opt-out option.

It's a potential income source, since people DO buy them, like with things like virtual gifts and such. Which is a good thing, I think, so long as it's not forced on anyone.

As someone said, LJ had some horribly problematic options at first though, if I remember right. And I wouldn't want turning them off to also turn off customized userheads that denote DW staff.

[daweaver]

Being a good liberal, I start from the presumption that we should allow people to do whatever they like, and then look for an overwhelming social reason to rebut this principle.

Previous commentators have provided compelling reasons for storing icons within Dreamwidth's existing icon space, and suggested that the setting be over-ridable by logged-in viewers. Both of these are consistent with established practice: the former for security and privacy reasons, the latter to ensure customers remain in control of their experience.

The only remaining question is over confusion with existing account type indicators, there's a chance that a malicious customer might upload an icon deliberately similar to those of staff or communities, and wreak mischief. Pre-approval opens the door for more censorious people to say, "Ah! You censor people based on their swirlyheads, why do you not censor people based on their writing?" Instead, the problem of customers using icons similar to Staff could and should be handled within the existing protocols for people who make prats of themselves.

I don't think this is a feature I would ever use - indeed, I'd be sliding the off-switch to never see the damned things - but I can't come up with a compelling reason not to progress it.

[slyfox]

As much as I would love to be able to use my own, I think it would make far too much work for the DW staff approving them to make sure noone was impersonating staff or the like... unless they either made a truly custom userhead really expensive or limited to premium members or something (and you have to pay). I don't think it would be a big bandwidth issue, since they're so tiny.

I would love to see custom userheads, but not duplicates of LJ's. Even something as simple as being able to pick a colour of the default userhead would make me happy.. but I just love customization. :P

I think that, unless it were something VERY basic (like colours), it would be necessary to have an "opt out" feature. But it would be a good way of generating more revenue for a relatively simple feature.. The main opposition seems to be because it will be ugly/cluttered/confusing, which would easily be resolved by having an opt-out, or limiting the ability to certain users (so if you see a custom userhead you know it is a premium member, or something).

I'm kind of surprised at the vitriol towards this idea.. I've been using custom userheads on my livejournal for years, well before they put them up for sale. (I have a custom script so I can sort people and it shows a little Hogwarts house icon next to their name everywhere instead of the usericon.) It kind of seems like "If you don't like it, don't get one?" issue to me...