New Signature Size Poll

New Signature Size Poll

  • No Signature banners

    Votes: 8 5.4%

  • Current Size 468 x 60 (25 kbs)

    Votes: 38 25.7%

  • 480 x 100 (25 kbs)

    Votes: 68 45.9%

  • No size restrictions.

    Votes: 34 23.0%
  • Total voters
    148
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Alan_Yeomans

New member
New Signature Size Poll

We are currently reviewing the Forum signature banner size and would like your input on the size, feel free to vote in the poll with your selection.

Cheers.

A) No Signature banners
B) Current Size 468 x 60 (25 kbs)
c) 480 x 100
D) Unlimited


Alan
 
I should mention that dial-up users (or anyone really) can turn off the viewing of signatures in the UserCP.

peter
 
I say the 480x100 option. Gives plenty of detail, but is still a reasonable size for dial-up users.
Unlimited is asking for trouble. People will then have 800x600 images and that sort of thing.
Just my opinion though.
Zec
 
468*60 seems good enough to me. As Alan's Classics sig demonstrates, there is more than enough space for an image and a bit of text :)
 
Only if the texture is OVER the image. My sig suffers because the bar on the E is one pixel thick. If you have a logo, and then put text under that logo (Because it just look stupid with text covering it)
you sig looks very average. It's very hard to read the text on it.
Zec
 
I can read it;), but i guess your trying to prove your point.
But i'm behind Zec, my sig is way to small to read because it has to fit within the guidlines and i can't stretch it to fit so it is really tiny. I guess i'm going to have to make a new one.

Its good that there is a poll, we should more of these.:rolleyes:;)
cheers, Daniel
 
3830 said:
I can read it;), but i guess your trying to prove your point.
But i'm behind Zec, my sig is way to small to read because it has to fit within the guidlines and i can't stretch it to fit so it is really tiny. I guess i'm going to have to make a new one.

Its good that there is a poll, we should more of these.:rolleyes:;)
cheers, Daniel
Click to expand...
I agree there should but a but no size limit because well, em i'm like that. :)
 
TBH, I'm not too bothered either way... it's just my preference for smaller sigs. For example, Zec could change the font or decrease the size of the loco so as to increase the text if he were to make the very best use of the area; 480*60 ought to be more than enough space for an informative sig
 
Well i've just made a new sig and i'm so suprised how small ***x 60 is. would you be able to make it 640x100?
 
now i know i shouldn't be doing this because last time i was kicked of or banned or something, but my sig is 640 by 100 (pixels) so that should gove you an idea
 
100x640 if you ask me. 60 can be a bit tight for some and as long as the file size limit is still 25kb then it shouldn't be any more of a problem for dial up users. The other thing is if you have it unlimited then people will have a huge banners which, even if you have a good enuf connection to download, will take up huge amounts of space on the page so you spend half your time on the forum scrolling past sigs.

Andy
 
I'd prefer the 480x100. the main reasn is kinda selfesh. but for a while that was closer to the size. so I made my sig specifically fo this forums size limits. and then The limits got changed so its now in violation of the CoC. although I do think 680x100 is a better size, bacasuse when you get much smaller they tend to get cramped and harder to read. Thiongs get smooshed, etc. and also why 468? why not 470? the numbering just seems wierd.

peter
 
Hi, Alan.

My apologies for going off topic a bit. IMHO, the problem is not the size or weight of the sig picture, the problem is the limitation of characters (coding included) which narrows the possibilities of linking and makes our sigs be really minimalist (see mine as a sample).

Please expand the number of characters allowed.

Take care,

Alberte
 
I agree with zato, my current problem isn't pixels, but the number of characters allowed within the signature. 512 Characters are currently the restriction, but I think 1024 would work.

Being that each character is equal to 1 Byte, 1024 characters would only equal 1kb. Even on a dial-up connection it should be fine, considering we're talking about a 56kb/sec connection, and no slower.



I'm for 480x100x32 (32 bit). Unlimited would be disasterous, could you imagine someone with a 1600x1200x32 picture? Yikes!

Speaking of which, another thing to consider is the resolution of screen someone is running at. If you want your signature to be legible, you have to test it under high resolution conditions. The higher the resolution, the smaller your sig will be. For example, I can read 3830's sig at 1024x768, whereas I can barely read it (without magnification from Firefox) at 1600x1200 (my usual desktop resolution).

If you can't read your sig at 1600x1200, and you have reached the maximum sig size defined by the CoC, then there would be just cause for revising the maximum sig size.

Just my input.

Cheers,
John
 
I, for one, agree on NO SIZE RESTRCITIONS.
then, we can make tghem as big as we need.
But, i agree on a part way with FRM, there should be an option to shut off your sig if you wish to.
 
I don't agree with not having a size resriction, for example if certain people were daft enough to upload a large file size image of a size, say around 800x600 pixels, then it would just get confusing.

I agree with going up to 100 from 60 though...

Cheers

Chris
 
While the comments are interesting and have something to add everyone so far has missed the fundamental issue behind all this:

  1. Some signatures link to a website and can be considered, in very basic terms, to serve a function.
  2. Some signatures do not link to a website and in those same basic terms may be considered purely gratuitous.
It all boils down to what is this forum for?

For those who like lots of snazzy piccies and photos there is the dedicated screenshot forum. When you log into those threads you just know you're going to be dealing with large graphics. You can pick and choose.

When I check a thread about why my signals won't work or why is my track not straight I want to see the answers and suggestions. Screenshots can be helpful in understanding the problem but I fail to see what graphics heavy gratuitous signatures have to do with the problem.

Having a limit on the size of signatures is absolutely essential. It is simply human nature to grab more and more. I can remember some of the signatures on the old forum before Auran started getting tough. There were signatures of galactic proportions. For something that is purely gratuitous and non-functional an awful lot of internet data was tied up in displaying them.

And while I accept that the creators of the signatures consider them wonderful works of art, they do have to accept that some people do not feel the same way about them.

It's not an issue of dial-up, broadband or even baked bean tins joined with a bit of string.

It's about unnecessary clutter.





Cheers

Nix
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top