|
|
Post by Kainus Maximus on Jul 30, 2008 2:25:39 GMT -5
I have recieved a couple complaints recently on the size of some recent signature images that have been appearing on the board. Mostly saying that they are too large for the screen. Our current limit is set at 600x400, and thus they are technically not breaking any rules, however, a lobby for a change has been made, to reduce it to 500x300. For an idea of this, here are some examples. The Current limit: 600x400:  The proposed 500x300:  |
|
|
|
Post by EJP on Jul 30, 2008 3:44:11 GMT -5
How about a limit on the memory of the sig? There are 3 GIF sigs on this site that cause some great lag for my craptastic connection.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Jul 30, 2008 9:16:30 GMT -5
How ironic, I was just having this very conversation with SonofMarth. I don't have a problem with long signatures, so long as they don't stretch the screen, but height is where the big screen hogs come in. When they're taller than anyone else's, they dwarf everything else on the page and become a real eyesore, particularly in a couple of cases where the signatures, while not rule-breaking, are still particularly tasteless.
|
|
Psi
Full Member
Posts: 627
|
Post by Psi on Jul 30, 2008 9:42:03 GMT -5
I just deleted mine >.> so there are no problems  . Why not disable them all together? |
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Jul 30, 2008 9:50:45 GMT -5
Because we like avatars and signatures. It adds a uniqueness to our posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by This One on Jul 30, 2008 11:37:34 GMT -5
I agree with Nin. I hate seeing sigs that are taller than posts. Especially in threads with generally short posts (such as those of teh l337ness).
|
|
|
|
Post by Beanybag on Jul 30, 2008 13:00:13 GMT -5
Hey Kainus Maximus, can you provide another example for the 500x300 sig...I use a white theme and the car seems really small for me. o.o
|
|
Son of Marth
Full Member
also known as Dark Samus
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by Son of Marth on Jul 30, 2008 14:15:10 GMT -5
Beany, this is the 600x400 when reduced to 500x300 but yeah, if the signatures are to big yet the rules allow it, then the rule is in need of changing. i personally think 500X300 is ok. |
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Jul 30, 2008 16:09:05 GMT -5
600 width was chosen simply to prevent screen strecthing on an 800x600 screen; 400 height was an arbitrary number chosen that fits best. Personally, I don't think the width matters as much as the height. For example, Ninmast's signature image is 500 pixels wide, yet only 40 tall; if I extended it out another 100, no one would have a problem with it (desides maybe Ninmast ) Just to prove a point...this is a 600x200:  ...and this 600x300:  Personally, I think maybe a 600x200 or 600x250 limit would be best. |
|
|
|
Post by TrueBlue© on Jul 30, 2008 18:26:48 GMT -5
I agree with Donut, 600x200 or 600x250 seem more appropriate. My own sig is something like 500x180, and even that is kinda embarrassing to have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Jul 30, 2008 21:45:06 GMT -5
Yours actually looks likean alright height, True. But when it's smack in the middle and, technically, the size of the entire screen on the lowest, and often default resolution on a monitor, that could be a problem.
Granted, that's often hard for me to see because I have a 1280x800 widescreen, but still, as it was phrased by This One, if the signature is bigger than the average post from the person, it sticks out all the more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Jul 31, 2008 3:52:14 GMT -5
Right...so, 600x200 then? >.>
|
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Jul 31, 2008 9:58:40 GMT -5
Well, the most votes are for the length not to matter at all, so long as it doesn't stretch. So how about just changing it so it can't be any taller than 200 or 250? Either of which sounds good to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Jul 31, 2008 19:29:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Jul 31, 2008 20:13:00 GMT -5
You find the best pictures for these things ... I wonder if you could find a picture for all the big rules ...
|
|
.
