Emoticons

Ju Ju Master · **Joined:** Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:01 am **Posts:** 6245

I made one a while ago. Not transparent, though, I can't do that with my paint program (WIndows 3 version of Paintshop)

It also looks a bit big

And if I scaled it down on my computer it'd make it a ot worse (Paintshop really lowers teh image quality after a few saves. It sucks. I need a better paint program...)

ed 'lim' smilde · **Posted:** Mon May 22, 2006 9:44 pm

Yeah, paint can't do anti-aliasing or anything. When several pixels are combined into one pixel, it just chooses the most frequent color and makes the entire pixel that color rather than mixing all the colors together. Makes it look all jaggedy.

Teh Ch8t · **Posted:** Mon May 22, 2006 10:11 pm

Ju Ju Master wrote:

I made one a while ago. Not transparent, though, I can't do that with my paint program (WIndows 3 version of Paintshop)

It also looks a bit big

:sm:

And if I scaled it down on my computer it'd make it a ot worse (Paintshop really lowers teh image quality after a few saves. It sucks. I need a better paint program...)

I tried to downsize it and transparent it, but A) My GIMP transparent thing doesn't seem to like JPG's tranparent. Boo. And B) My compy doesn't seem to want it to go under 32 x 32 pixels, whenever I go lower it says something along the lines of "We can't do that, bruddah!"

ed 'lim' smilde · **Posted:** Mon May 22, 2006 10:57 pm

Teh Ch8t wrote:

A) My GIMP transparent thing doesn't seem to like JPG's tranparent. Boo.

That's cause JPEG's can't be transparent. Transperent images must be GIF's or (preferably) PNG's.

J-Man · **Posted:** Tue May 23, 2006 3:24 pm

I can make a PNG version of of the one I did (see my previous post), if it's necessary.

Btw, what do you think of the one I did? I think it's pretty small (yet recognisable) now. The edges came out pretty smooth.

ed 'lim' smilde · **Posted:** Tue May 23, 2006 7:23 pm

J-Man wrote:

I can make a PNG version of of the one I did (see my previous post), if it's necessary.

Btw, what do you think of the one I did? I think it's pretty small (yet recognisable) now. The edges came out pretty smooth.

The problem with it is that it's alpha-transparent, so it looks great in Firefox but looks like total cwap in Internet Explorer. Don't worry, that's IE's fault, not yours, but a lot of people here use IE

.

J-Man · **Posted:** Tue May 23, 2006 8:25 pm

Did you check the PNGs? I think they handled the edges better.

What comes to images showing correctly, well, I think it should be defined by the most W3C-friendly, most accurate web browser. Isn't Firefox the most accurate one at the moment? I use Opera myself.

ed 'lim' smilde · **Posted:** Tue May 23, 2006 9:08 pm

J-Man wrote:

What comes to images showing correctly, well, I think it should be defined by the most W3C-friendly, most accurate web browser. Isn't Firefox the most accurate one at the moment? I use Opera myself.

Yes, Firefox is one of the most accurate, but internet explorer isn't even close, and that's probably the most common browser used on this forum (which stinks).

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Tue May 23, 2006 9:48 pm

Actually Safari and Konqueror (which both use the WebKit renderer) do the best rendering right now.

Anyway, Ed's right. The rest of our emoticons use 1-bit PNG transparency for IE compatability and it looks fine in all browsers, and that's what we'll continue to do for the forseeable future.

J-Man · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 1:37 pm

Ah, so the PNGs had brown boxes surrounding them when I checked with IE (eww). I just fixed the problem and they now seem to be ok in Exploder.

Stu · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 2:13 pm

I kinda like this one, but it has some rough edges still (look at it on the darker background). I think it is the right size and is still obvious who it is. Give it another once over and I'll run it by the other admins.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 2:19 pm

FYI, the average color for post backgrounds in our theme is #ededf6, or rgb(237,237,246), so if you use that as your working background (i.e. before applying transparency) you'll pretty much eliminate the jaggies.

Stu · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 2:30 pm

This topic should be merged with the current emoticon topic... I am going to do that. Right now in fact.

J-Man · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 2:48 pm

Okay, since I once again couldn't decide, here are two versions that are slightly different from each other (one has "smooth" edges and one hasn't):

Stu · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 3:31 pm

Personally, I am leaning a little more to the one on the right. The left one is a little shorter, fatter, and more jaggedy (is that even close to a real word?)

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 4:41 pm

Stu wrote:

Personally, I am leaning a little more to the one on the right. The left one is a little shorter, fatter, and more jaggedy (is that even close to a real word?)

Yeah, I agree. I'm digging the one on the right.

Stu · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 5:37 pm

Well... It is so.

Never again will it be said that the admins here on hrwiki are cold, heartless, ruthless, ignorant, err... jerks.

:senor:

I'll move it up later

Funkstar · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 5:43 pm

Combolations!

J-Man · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 6:08 pm

Sweet!

ramrod · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 6:38 pm

Stu wrote:

Well... It is so.

Never again will it be said that the admins here on hrwiki are cold, heartless, ruthless, ignorant, err... jerks.

:senor:

I'll move it up later

I take back everything I've said about you...or at least the stuff I said behind your back.....

[size=0](joking)[/size]

:senor:

Freaking awesome.

Speckeldorf · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 7:45 pm

..?

!

(yay)

Ju Ju Master · **Joined:** Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:01 am **Posts:** 6245

Woo! My hope has finaly been fufilled!

This should probably be locked now, however.

J-Man · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 9:17 pm

I don't think this should be locked in case of future emoticons.

Ju Ju Master · **Joined:** Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:01 am **Posts:** 6245

J-Man wrote:

I don't think this should be locked in case of future emoticons.

I posted that before the senor cardgage emoticon thread was merged into this one. I was talking about locking that thread.

Teh Ch8t · **Posted:** Thu May 25, 2006 12:25 am

Ha! Congrats!! I had a feeling they would use this sucker!! Must feel special to have gotten your smiley made! ^_^

Badri3211 · **Posted:** Thu May 25, 2006 12:48 am

Impressive! I believe we need more and more emoticons! It will be an emoticon collection!

Teh Ch8t · **Posted:** Thu May 25, 2006 12:52 am

Badri3211 wrote:

:senor: Impressive! I believe we need more and more emoticons! It will be an emoticon collection!

Bagh, it gets annoying with thousands of emoticons... I think deviantART has too many. Sue me XD

Ninti · **Joined:** Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:35 pm **Posts:** 3094

Wewt! I'ma use this alot...

Stu · **Posted:** Thu May 25, 2006 1:44 am

Teh Ch8t wrote:

Badri3211 wrote:

:senor: Impressive! I believe we need more and more emoticons! It will be an emoticon collection!

Bagh, it gets annoying with thousands of emoticons... I think deviantART has too many. Sue me XD

The thing about emoticons is... even if we don't host them, people can still post them (from their own image hosting locations). The menu with the emoticons is not that intrusive (unless you click the more emoticons button, and even then)

I don't think the emoticons we have are all that bad. But don't worry... we won't be adding a thousand more. And even if we did, they would all be quality emoticons

or should I say... :senor:

Acekirby · **Posted:** Sun May 28, 2006 1:34 am

nintendogs123 wrote:

:senor: Wewt! I'ma use this alot...

...For what?

That's my only beef with this emoticon, and a lot of the others we have. The character ones are nice, but are rarely used. And I don't think anyone uses :usa:

,

, or

. Personally, I think we'd get more use out of the "lech" one that was suggested.

...But that's just me.

:senor:

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Emoticons

Who is online