Pastelland Forum

Error 3113 wrote:I've heard

---

but anyway, I'm still curious as to your reasoning, Crystal.

For avatars focusing on a central icon or small object, it's great. For avatars that incorporate edge detailing or simply need more space to properly implement their concept, it's damaging. Since the entire point of an avatar is user-customization, it seems wrong to enforce a particular style. Ultimately, it's not like anyone who wants a circular outline can't get one for themselves, .png and transparency is, after all, a thing.

AC wrote:Since the entire point of an avatar is user-customization, it seems wrong to enforce a particular style

Didn't that happen with square avatars anyway?

AC wrote:Ultimately, it's not like anyone who wants a circular outline can't get one for themselves, .png and transparency is, after all, a thing.

Treu

Ancient Crystal wrote:For avatars focusing on a central icon or small object, it's great. For avatars that incorporate edge detailing or simply need more space to properly implement their concept, it's damaging.

The designer in me proclaimed that to be a good point.

Ancient Crystal wrote:Since the entire point of an avatar is user-customization, it seems wrong to enforce a particular style.

If I read that right, you're calling a circle "style" while a square can also constitutes as a "style." However, your earlier point supersede this one considering that the square DOES acquire larger total area than circle when placed within the same confined 100 x 100 space.

But it still just that, a style. As a designer, what I see here are:

square
square
square
rectangle
square
rectangle

It quite tiring and boring. To me, circular avatar free up that style and allows the whole design to breath.

A simple square that has more space felt more restrictive design-wise comparing to circle that has less space and happens to be more visually free and compelling.

@AK+Soullock:

How long you will be with us these days?
I mean, to be active in near future

Sublevel 102 wrote:@AK+Soullock:

How long you will be with us these days?
I mean, to be active in near future

Here and there.

Yes, that and because of 57% ratio.

WorldisQuiet5256 wrote:Yes, that and because of 57% ratio.

WRONG.

It is actually 63.661977236% ratio.

Before we get started, please consult this diagram before I explain in details how I calculated the actual ratio.



Spin the circle so that the corner of square touch the northern, souther, eastern, and western point. Now draw a large square around the circle so that both the circle and inner square are touching the boundary of the larger square.

NOW, draw a diameter line through the circle from north to south or east to west corners of inner circle. That diameter is measured at the SAME length as a side of the larger circle.

Let's say the size of larger square is 2x2, then the diameter of circle (as well as line inside the smaller square) is also 2. Now break the diameter into radius, which is half so that's mean radius is 1. Now that you got radius, you can break the smaller square into 4 right triangles with all of their smaller sides measured at 1 since those sides are also the radius!

Now we have a right triangle with two measured sides, let's use Pythagorean theorem. Take the two sides of A and B (1 and 1), square them both and add them together to get the squared C.

A^2 + B^2 = C^2

1^2 + 1^2 = 2

Now square root the C^2, which is 2, to get the measured side C.

√(C^2) = √2

The measured side C is also the side of smaller square, so now you can square the √2 to get the area of smaller square.

(√2)^2 = 2

Now we have the area of smaller square, let's find the area of circle, which should be easy:

pi x radius^2 = area

pi x 1^2 = pi = 3.14159265359

Now we have two areas, let's figure out the ratio. You should divide the area of smaller square by the area of circle:

small square / circle = ratio

2 / 3.14159265359 = 0.63661977236

That's in decimal. You can easily multiply it by 100 to get the percentage.

0.63661977236 x 100 = 63.661977236

There you go. That's the actual ratio.

God AK with Ener's sunglasses
:3

admin wrote:

Ancient Crystal wrote:For avatars focusing on a central icon or small object, it's great. For avatars that incorporate edge detailing or simply need more space to properly implement their concept, it's damaging.

The designer in me proclaimed that to be a good point.

I'm glad we agree.

admin wrote:

Ancient Crystal wrote:Since the entire point of an avatar is user-customization, it seems wrong to enforce a particular style.

If I read that right, you're calling a circle "style" while a square can also constitutes as a "style."

A circle is a style, a square is a style. That's not my point. My point is, in this context, a circle is just a cropped square. Squares allow circles. Circles forbid squares.

admin wrote: But it still just that, a style. As a designer, what I see here are:

square
square
square
rectangle
square
rectangle

It quite tiring and boring. To me, circular avatar free up that style and allows the whole design to breath.

A simple square that has more space felt more restrictive design-wise comparing to circle that has less space and happens to be more visually free and compelling.

Well, it's your forum, I suppose.