|
Post by Teh Donut on Nov 5, 2008 3:01:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by TrueBlue© on Nov 5, 2008 11:38:08 GMT -5
The last one is broken, D-dog! Here.
|
|
zandyne
Full Member
This is NOT Zetsu. DX
Posts: 1,037
|
Post by zandyne on Nov 5, 2008 19:07:31 GMT -5
Less is more!
|
|
|
Post by Beanybag on Nov 5, 2008 19:10:59 GMT -5
600x200 is fine, True's is 500x180 and hers is already pretty big. So 600x200 should be more than enough.
|
|
|
Post by The Silent Orator on Nov 5, 2008 20:04:47 GMT -5
Personally, I'm a fan of having max 400x200 including text...
... but I'll go for the next closest thing and vote 600x200.
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Nov 5, 2008 20:06:34 GMT -5
I find it ironic that in one thread, we complain that we are trying to legislate too much, then in the one right next to it, we're trying to set a specific set-in-stone size for signatures, something that holds no bearing on anything to do with writing whatsoever.
I am, however, voting for 600x200, because I understand that, as much as some may dislike it, without order, there is inevitably chaos. I should note, however, that I think, in terms of signatures, an iron hold is a bad idea. Nobody should have their signatures deleted if the only rule violation is that it's 600x215.
|
|
|
Post by Beanybag on Nov 5, 2008 20:21:23 GMT -5
We're not adding any regulation with this thread though, Ninmast, just changing the already set rule.
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Nov 5, 2008 21:06:02 GMT -5
Thus becoming more confining in what we deem appropriate because big signatures are a pet peeve of some people on this forum. It simply happens to be a bigger pet peeve than descriptions, so nobody seems to mind.
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Nov 6, 2008 2:10:30 GMT -5
Yes, a 100% vote in favour of change is a sign that this is only a "bigger pet peeve" and not a serious issue. I fully agree that those only a few pixels over shouldn't recieve strict punishment, thus why I agreed to the "within reason" idea. We already discussed the reasons for this rule: 600-width signatures are the absolute maximum allowed because stretching the screens of our 800x600 friends is rude and disrespectful. The rule on height is being ammended for the same reasons, as breaking up single lines of text with page-long pictures is just as disrespectful, with the additional tag that it's simply inconvenient to sort though said page-long graphics to search for a single line or word of key information. In a way, this is very much about writing; this is a writing forum, not a "look at my super-cool sig pic I totally stole from the internet and to which I made minor additions" forum. Completely unlike, of course, a resolution to add a rule that would have nothing but adverse effects upon the quality of anything within these forums.
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Nov 6, 2008 16:44:43 GMT -5
Let's stay on topic, Donut. ^_^
Joking, but on a serious note, we already know the reason for the rule. The reason is not under dispute, nor is the rule, itself. You can't let one comment somebody makes about finding something ironic while they stay on topic steer you completely into another topic entirely. Opinions are like ear lobes. Everyone has them, and it rarely serves any purpose to pay them any more mind than a passing thought.
|
|
|
Post by The Silent Orator on Nov 6, 2008 17:43:34 GMT -5
Only reason I didn't like the 600x200 is because there are still people out there with 640x( ) resolutions. A 600 pixel width for a signature would page stretch such a resolution monitor. Perhaps that could be taken into consideration? Although, I suppose... it's up to the people... if someone complains, we could always work with them. EDIT: There are still people who use 640x( ). Although it's a poor example, the library computers at my college use it. I find that most websites I go to now-a-days page stretch now when I use those computers.
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Nov 6, 2008 18:34:52 GMT -5
*laments over your earlobes*
640x480 is an uncommon screen resolution...the industry standard minimum is 800x600, which is (or was) the default of most 4:3 resolution monitors. really, any 4:3 "fullscreen" resolution monitor can be set to 800x600 by changing the display settings. Otherwise, we would be able to justify reducing the size to, say, Blackberry screen settings. Really tiny...
Most people here don't go the full 600 pixel width, anyhow. The main issue seems to be height.
|
|
|
Post by TrueBlue© on Nov 7, 2008 0:05:08 GMT -5
Indeed. I use an 800x600 screen, and my own sig looks embarrassingly large...
...I felt it necessary to say that, since you people keep bringing its size up and making me all self-conscious... >_>;
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Nov 8, 2008 8:49:09 GMT -5
I have a huge resolution. But then, I don't think my computer can even go down to 640x480, so what looks like an okay size to me may not be so okay on someone else's screen. As a result, I'm really not good at spotting a bad size unless it's REALLY bad.
|
|
Enigma
Full Member
Entropy will always Triumph!
Posts: 1,192
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 8, 2008 9:32:38 GMT -5
My screen won't go below 800 X 600, but i'm sitting at a normal 1024 X 764. I know my Sig is large, and I love it like that. It is the very representation of who I am. xD
I can change it if need to, but I won't be very pleased. -starts to crack his knuckles-
|
|