Signature size update for the times?

BigDBigD [OldF] Join Date: 2002-10-25 Member: 1596Members
in Artwork Forum
<div class="IPBDescription">Why not bump'em up a bit?</div>The year: 2002.
The plan: Make signatures less obtrusive and bandwidth friendly.
The result: 400x75x22kb.

And it was good.

But that was over 4 years ago. Screen resolutions have gone up. More people are on high speed internet. The forums no longer host images. I think we could handle a bump.

Nothing huge, still don't want them to be obnoxious. But I'm on 56k myself and I can tell you that I would gladly like to see better quality images. (I have my number of posts displayed set to 30-40 on most forums I read) My biggest complaint is that artifacts in jpegs are <i>sooooo</i> 1999.

I admit, this came about after discovering that Photoshop's "size estimation" when saving a jpeg blatantly lies (this sig is supposed to be 14k?) and after being made aware I was over with the old version, I was immediately annoyed at how little detail fits within a 400x75 image. A simple bump to 30-35kb would give so much more breathing room. Width and height I don't care about, I realize a lot of people don't like sigs taking up space, but I think we can handle a bit more bandwidth in this day and age.

Yes? No? Maybe? So?
Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome

Comments

  • MaverickkMaverickk Join Date: 2006-12-03 Member: 58857Members
    I'm all for it. There needs to be <i>some</i> limitation though. Yea resolutions have gotten bigger as an average over the years but for those of us still running a small desktop resolution, I don't want someone with a signature that's 600x200 that will break the width of the forums. Something like 400x200 seems fine, maybe 500ish but nothing bigger in my opinion. And allow multiple images in a sig, as long as they don't add up to more than the max limitation.

    And increase avatar file size and dimensions, almost no one has any cool animated avatars, cause it's hard to make a nice looking animation look good in such a small box.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • ChocolateChocolate The Team Mascot Join Date: 2006-10-31 Member: 58123Members
    Yeah! Im for it too... Ive gotten my sig removed 2 times already in 2 days.... erg.

    I think the size should be somewhere around the 400x200 mark like Maverickk said. The actual size should be somewhere around the 50k mark, so it could allow those sigs that change more easily.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • WyzcrakWyzcrak Pot Pie Aficionado Join Date: 2002-12-04 Member: 10447Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
    Great idea. I do hope it's acted upon.... modestly.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • SpaceJesusSpaceJesus Join Date: 2004-07-02 Member: 29683Banned
    suggestion : 450x150, 50kb
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • LikuLiku I, am the Somberlain. Join Date: 2003-01-10 Member: 12128Members
    Yeah, 400 x 100 is pretty bad, trying to edit something is a pain because you can't get much in.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • ComproxComprox *chortle* Canada Join Date: 2002-01-23 Member: 7Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver, Subnautica Developer, Subnautica Playtester, Pistachionauts
    I'm throwing my vote of no in here (but Ill discuss it with the higher ups). The point of a small signature is we are here to read the forums, not stare at oversized signatures all day. A signature is nice so you can easily see who has posted, but that's about it. As for the kb size: yes 22kb is small and meant to take care of the people on slower connections and less people are on slower connections. But really, people's signatures look fine now, and a size increase would be used for one of 2 things (if we didn't increase dimensions): 1. animation. ugh. no. 2. sharper images, which really aren't a problem as is.

    So what if we raise it just a bit? Well, no matter what number we raise it by, someone will want just a little bit more, so there is no right answer.

    And frankly, the small sizes have forced some creativity into people's signatures rather than just smothering them with pictures of 14 things you like.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • SpaceJesusSpaceJesus Join Date: 2004-07-02 Member: 29683Banned
    <!--quoteo(post=1616636:date=Mar 24 2007, 02:50 PM:name=Comprox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Comprox @ Mar 24 2007, 02:50 PM) [snapback]1616636[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->a size increase would be used for one of 2 things (if we didn't increase dimensions): 1. animation. ugh. no. 2. sharper images, which really aren't a problem as is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    My sig looks horrible because of the 22kb size restriction....
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • RobRob Unknown Enemy Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 25Members, NS1 Playtester
    <!--quoteo(post=1616690:date=Mar 24 2007, 08:59 PM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Mar 24 2007, 08:59 PM) [snapback]1616690[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
    My sig looks horrible because of the 22kb size restriction....
    <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    I think your sig looks great!

    Seriously, one of the really homey aspects of our forums has always been the heavy restrictions on sig images. I'd surely not vote for a dimensions increase.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • sherpasherpa stopcommandermode Join Date: 2006-11-04 Member: 58338Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1616636:date=Mar 24 2007, 08:50 PM:name=Comprox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Comprox @ Mar 24 2007, 08:50 PM) [snapback]1616636[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The point of a small signature is we are here to read the forums, not stare at oversized signatures all day. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Poor argument.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • SnappyCrunchSnappyCrunch Join Date: 2004-08-03 Member: 30328Members, Constellation
    I don't like images in signatures at all.

    People already get an avatar, and it's not hard to see who's posting - you just look a little bit to the left.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • ScytheScythe Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 46NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation, Reinforced - Silver
    The less you've got, the more you value it. You discover amazing new ways to use the space more efficiently rather than just going hog-wild with a ton of crap jammed in any which way. Just look at Quanaut's sigs for an example.

    --Scythe--
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • LikuLiku I, am the Somberlain. Join Date: 2003-01-10 Member: 12128Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1616915:date=Mar 25 2007, 07:46 PM:name=Scythe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Scythe @ Mar 25 2007, 07:46 PM) [snapback]1616915[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
    The less you've got, the more you value it.
    <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Maybe, but it still doesn't fulfill my hunger.

    I just like the size to be a bit bigger, especially for people with cropped images(like me), the detail turns to fuzz.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • BigDBigD [OldF] Join Date: 2002-10-25 Member: 1596Members
    I quite agree that huge and/or flashy sigs are bad, but 22kb is difficult to get a lot of detail in. Heck, the "nice" version of my sig fits within 30kb a lot better. Sharper signatures would be worth it. A small increment of the memory size alone would be nice.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • SkinnYSkinnY Join Date: 2002-11-07 Member: 7500Members
    Hello,

    My name is Skinny, and i'm a big-images-in-your-sig-hater.

    I've been this ever since i've started going to the NS-forums where they have rather strickt sig-rules. Ever since i started visiting and reading the NS-forums i've become accustom to small clean sigs. This is why no forum will be the same, i can no longer stand to see 512*120 sigs. So, for the love of kittens, don't change the rules.

    Thank you for your time.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • CabooseCaboose title = name(self, handle) Join Date: 2003-02-15 Member: 13597Members, Constellation
    Hehe, for the love of kittens.

    I like the width and height restrictions as well, but I'd like to see increase to 30kb. I've made sigs in the past that ended up being too grainy for me to even use because of the 22kb limit.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • RoverRover blargh Join Date: 2003-09-23 Member: 21139Members
    edited April 2007
    <!--quoteo(post=1618282:date=Apr 2 2007, 06:23 AM:name=Caboose)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Caboose @ Apr 2 2007, 06:23 AM) [snapback]1618282[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
    Hehe, for the love of kittens.

    I like the width and height restrictions as well, but I'd like to see increase to 30kb. I've made sigs in the past that ended up being too grainy for me to even use because of the 22kb limit.
    <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Agreed. Not that I need a bigger one or anything, but still <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />


    edit: and yes I know I'm necroing. Yes, I know I didn't have anything new to say. Yes, I'm an idiot.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • AndosAndos Join Date: 2003-10-17 Member: 21742Members
    I vote no too..
    I'm here to read posts, not to look at pwetty images were people can write their name in.

    This is no MySpace site <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • BigDBigD [OldF] Join Date: 2002-10-25 Member: 1596Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1620916:date=Apr 14 2007, 04:16 AM:name=Andos)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Andos @ Apr 14 2007, 04:16 AM) [snapback]1620916[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
    I vote no too..
    I'm here to read posts, not to look at pwetty images were people can write their name in.

    This is no MySpace site <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
    <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    And hence, for people such as yourself, the option to disable the viewing of signatures is available. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />

    Personally, I believe the avatar and the signature define the person moreso than a couple words making up a name. It's the "face" of the internets!

    Anyway, 30KB would be a nice bump, if nothing else.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • JimmehJimmeh Join Date: 2003-08-24 Member: 20173Members, Constellation
    edited April 2007
    <!--quoteo(post=1616636:date=Mar 24 2007, 08:50 PM:name=Comprox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Comprox @ Mar 24 2007, 08:50 PM) [snapback]1616636[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->*snip*<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    QFT.

    Especially this part:

    <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And frankly, the small sizes have forced some creativity into people's signatures rather than just smothering them with pictures of 14 things you like.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    After being on the NS forums, I've really come to appreciate the amount of space I have. I used to be (and still am with other things) over the top, huge images where I could easily fit it into something a lot smaller. I didn't optimise my images at all. A simple animation which could of fitted in current sig limitations was about 100kb.

    I occasionaly have problems when my sigs are 30b, maybe even 40kb. How do I get around this? Change the file format, optimise or shrink the sig slightly. Been working fine since I joined.

    Keep the limits. Please.


    <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And hence, for people such as yourself, the option to disable the viewing of signatures is available.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    I want to see them though. Sometimes they're wonderful art and they really help me identify who's who - more so than avatars because they stand out more and can fit a lot more art and detail in. I just don't want anything bigger than what they already are. Any bigger than current limits and they get obstructive, the file sizes causes more crap I don't need to download to be downloaded - wasting my bandwidth. People don't optimise them. People don't try to do anything original - they have loads of space to work with so why bother?
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • AhnteisAhnteis teh Bob Join Date: 2002-10-02 Member: 1405Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1616636:date=Mar 24 2007, 01:50 PM:name=Comprox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Comprox @ Mar 24 2007, 01:50 PM) [snapback]1616636[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
    I'm throwing my vote of no in here (but Ill discuss it with the higher ups). The point of a small signature is we are here to read the forums, not stare at oversized signatures all day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    I agree. Small, fast loading sigs are better. I don't WANT to see a bunch of animated large signatures.

    I WOULD like to see user-selectable skins for the forum.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
Sign In or Register to comment.