191 replies to this topic

[850_olaf_nz]

Good call!

It's difficult to discretely read a car forum at the office with HUGE GARISH sig pics to a)download and attract netadmin attention, b)attract passing coworkers attention (or worse, the boss), and c)give the idea that not only do I drive a volvo but I'm enthusiastic about it too!!!!

regards

'Olaf'

[shellie]

Good call!

It's difficult to discretely read a car forum at the office with HUGE GARISH sig pics to a)download and attract netadmin attention, b)attract passing coworkers attention (or worse, the boss), and c)give the idea that not only do I drive a volvo but I'm enthusiastic about it too!!!!

regards

'Olaf'

fixed

[Patrickw]

its probably all my fault since my old sig took up almost the whole page with my 2 lines of text.. sorry if i stired the $hit

[PyROTech]

That's the way it's always been done. Sorry, life sucks. I didn't remove it, don't know who did.

i guess i cant have everything.

[Texas850Turbo]

I think there should be a limit to the text too- maybe the same height as the sig pic?
So the whole signature can't be taller than 300 pixels

[Gioseppe]

i think 150 pixels is not tall enough.

how about this. since other people still use 150px of image, and another 50 billion lines of text, i'll just use my NORMAL 200px tall image and about one line of text.

if not, suckit.

[Gioseppe]

plus, width should not matter. if it's about streamlining the forum so people don't have to scroll through rediculously long sigs (like ryans) then the width argument is moot.

[prasamin]

don't be a pansy greg, atleast allow partially nws stuff in the sigs!

[dmelviØØ7]

I'm liking Joes' and Pras' arguments, although my current sig violates no rules whatsoever.

[Gioseppe]

I'm liking Joes' and Pras' arguments, although my current sig violates no rules whatsoever.

and yet it's still taller then some with pictures!

vote NO on 150px.

[dmelviØØ7]

and yet it's still taller then some with pictures!

vote NO on 150px.

Yeah, how the hell does that work? I must be dumb.

[Gioseppe]

Yeah, how the hell does that work? I must be dumb.

you press that lovely enter key for than once IIRC


lol danny.

btw, if someone was on dialup and was struggling with loading signatures, they can always turn then off, along with the avatars (but then again, you already knew that)

[Gage]

And Fixed

[bottlecap]

...why not do it by area? that would at least let people keep aspect ratios or let people be a few px over in one dimension if they were a few shorter in the other. also, since you're making this rule, how about making another to get rid of vids and animated sigs? they take longer to load than a simple image and are much more distracting.

just two ideas for your consideration, otherwise no complaints here.

-mike

Edited by bottlecap, 09 January 2007 - 09:17 AM.

[Piglet]

A small sig pic is still better than no sig pic like that other Volvo forum

[Steven Mendoza]

Fixed. And the mod information is short since... well, there are no real mods

[Jesus]

A small sig pic is still better than no sig pic like that other Volvo forum

werd. I personally think the new restraints are perfect. It has less to do with loading the page and more to do with having less to scroll up and down through, methinks. The width restriction is there just so that people on tiny laptops or anyone one else who's not rocking a huge display don't have to scroll sideways when one person decides the majesty of their signature can only be appreciated in super widescreen 1024x150 pixel glory.

[Kibim]

Busy updating it....

[Kibim]

Updated, Whats the deal with the text underneath? okay or must it go?

[gdizzle]

Updated, Whats the deal with the text underneath? okay or must it go?

Looks fine.

and yet it's still taller then some with pictures!

vote NO on 150px.

There isn't a vote. It is what it is and it will be enforced. There is no reason you need to have a sig that big. It serves no purpose other than to eat up bandwidth.