Post by Teh Donut on Apr 6, 2010 17:26:56 GMT -5
You can only vote for one, but you can also change your vote at any time until the poll/topic is closed.
This made me think of it.
I have not personally had any complaints about the current rule. While I know there are people who don't "strictly" follow the rule, I also have not heard of anyone complaining about those signatures, and really, because of it, we haven't even really enforced it. But, I figure it's time to see how public opinion is on this issue.
Before anyone jumps in with any particular "aye" or "nay" vote or decides to come in with their own take on the issue, I'll go ahead and post some of the best reasons for doing any of the above.
Option 1: Extend Signature Widths
To be honest, the vast majority of computers nowadays are at least 15 inches. While they can run the old 800x600 resolutions, most screens come default with at least a 1024x764 setting. As a matter of fact, the 1024 width is starting to become the minimum width to which most websites nowadays are designed to be compatable...it's just a very real example of evolving industry standards. With that said, the most of our members also use at least the 1024 setting, myself included (current situation notwithstanding).
The fact is that 800x600 is comparable to the 640x480 of ye olden days...it's slowly being marginalized. Yes, those with tiny netbooks, older computers/screens and such may still use 800x600 settings. However, I've rarely seen such a setup or screen lately, aside from a certain 8" Acer, and it's not especially fair to limit the creative expression of the majority of users simply to convenience a select few users on a select few computers. Because the new industry standard is roughly 1024 nowadays, it should naturally come to pass that signature should either be pushed to a limit of roughly 800 pixel width, or have widths completely done away with and only given height restrictions. Even with an 800 pixel limit, that would give people roughly 24 pixels of leeway before most screens began to stretch.
Option 2: Keep Signature Widths
As it was stated and agreed last time, the 600 pixel width was chosen simply because it is the minimum industry standard, not the trending popular standard. The fact remains that there are still people using 800x600 screens; we shouldn't have to marginalize certain members just because it's more convenient for certain others.
Aside from screen stretching, the 600 width is typically the unofficial standard "perfect width" for displaying most pictures on forums anyhow. Even on larger screens, it's large enough to see most details clearly, yet small enough not be an eyesore and distract everyone from the actual important content. Like we've argued before, 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 large graphics to search for a single line or word of key information in some odd small post somwehere. Like we said, 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. We have signatures simply to express ourselves and distinguish ourselves, and we can do all of that withthe current setup...without needing massively wide signatures.
It's not like we've had any problems with the current setup, anyhow.
Option 3: Reduce Signature Widths
It's true that most personal computer displays are trending to the 1024 limit. However, the overall internet/information experience is trending towards portability, such as Blackberries, iPods, and such...maybe even iPads now (I suppose). If we're going to consider users on 800x600 displays, we should also consider those people who get their information on-the-go. We don't need to completely get rid of signatures, but they should at least be scaled down quite a bit, because even a 600-width image can be an eyesore on smaller portable displays. Really, it's just about respecting anyone's computing capability, not just those down to a certain convenient limit.
Speaking of which, for those with slow or unreliable connections, even just 600-width graphics, especially if they're animated gifs of videos, can really bog-down a system. No one wants to visit/partake in a forum where they have to wait 3-5 minutes for each page to load, and especially not if it's a roleplaying forum.
Furthermore, like we already said...this is a writing board, not a graphics board. Quite often less is more when it comes to such things.
Your thoughts, please.
This made me think of it.
I have not personally had any complaints about the current rule. While I know there are people who don't "strictly" follow the rule, I also have not heard of anyone complaining about those signatures, and really, because of it, we haven't even really enforced it. But, I figure it's time to see how public opinion is on this issue.
Before anyone jumps in with any particular "aye" or "nay" vote or decides to come in with their own take on the issue, I'll go ahead and post some of the best reasons for doing any of the above.
Option 1: Extend Signature Widths
To be honest, the vast majority of computers nowadays are at least 15 inches. While they can run the old 800x600 resolutions, most screens come default with at least a 1024x764 setting. As a matter of fact, the 1024 width is starting to become the minimum width to which most websites nowadays are designed to be compatable...it's just a very real example of evolving industry standards. With that said, the most of our members also use at least the 1024 setting, myself included (current situation notwithstanding).
The fact is that 800x600 is comparable to the 640x480 of ye olden days...it's slowly being marginalized. Yes, those with tiny netbooks, older computers/screens and such may still use 800x600 settings. However, I've rarely seen such a setup or screen lately, aside from a certain 8" Acer, and it's not especially fair to limit the creative expression of the majority of users simply to convenience a select few users on a select few computers. Because the new industry standard is roughly 1024 nowadays, it should naturally come to pass that signature should either be pushed to a limit of roughly 800 pixel width, or have widths completely done away with and only given height restrictions. Even with an 800 pixel limit, that would give people roughly 24 pixels of leeway before most screens began to stretch.
Option 2: Keep Signature Widths
As it was stated and agreed last time, the 600 pixel width was chosen simply because it is the minimum industry standard, not the trending popular standard. The fact remains that there are still people using 800x600 screens; we shouldn't have to marginalize certain members just because it's more convenient for certain others.
Aside from screen stretching, the 600 width is typically the unofficial standard "perfect width" for displaying most pictures on forums anyhow. Even on larger screens, it's large enough to see most details clearly, yet small enough not be an eyesore and distract everyone from the actual important content. Like we've argued before, 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 large graphics to search for a single line or word of key information in some odd small post somwehere. Like we said, 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. We have signatures simply to express ourselves and distinguish ourselves, and we can do all of that withthe current setup...without needing massively wide signatures.
It's not like we've had any problems with the current setup, anyhow.
Option 3: Reduce Signature Widths
It's true that most personal computer displays are trending to the 1024 limit. However, the overall internet/information experience is trending towards portability, such as Blackberries, iPods, and such...maybe even iPads now (I suppose). If we're going to consider users on 800x600 displays, we should also consider those people who get their information on-the-go. We don't need to completely get rid of signatures, but they should at least be scaled down quite a bit, because even a 600-width image can be an eyesore on smaller portable displays. Really, it's just about respecting anyone's computing capability, not just those down to a certain convenient limit.
Speaking of which, for those with slow or unreliable connections, even just 600-width graphics, especially if they're animated gifs of videos, can really bog-down a system. No one wants to visit/partake in a forum where they have to wait 3-5 minutes for each page to load, and especially not if it's a roleplaying forum.
Furthermore, like we already said...this is a writing board, not a graphics board. Quite often less is more when it comes to such things.
Your thoughts, please.
