What do you want sig image sizes to be?
Marik_Steele
To rule in hell... Join Date: 2002-11-20 Member: 9466Members
To rule in hell... Join Date: 2002-11-20 Member: 9466Members
So far, we've been using rules posted in <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com:90/forums/index.php?s=3658489309764665856&showtopic=91822" target="_blank">this thread</a> that say the following about sig size limits:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sig images must be no more than 400 pixels wide x 75 pixels high, and they must also be no more than 22KB in size.
Avatars must be no more than 64 pixels x 64 pixels, and they must also be no more than 22KB in size. Hopefully they will not run anywhere near this limit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While the forums were down, some of us staff members were chatting a bit about increasing these limits.
Your answer above may affect a decision. There's still stuff we need to consider on our end, so I'm making no guarantees, but I'd like to see what you all think.
Once you've answered the poll question, post below about what pixel/filesize you'd like.
For reference I'll list a few sig images we've had people want to use in the past:
The 2nd biggest banner for the 2005 Child's Play charity was 468x60 pixels. It looked like this: <img src="http://www.childsplaycharity.org/img/cp468.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
The "classic" [read: largest] xfire miniprofile image is 440x111 pixels.
The "short & wide" xfire miniprofile image is 450x34 pixels.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sig images must be no more than 400 pixels wide x 75 pixels high, and they must also be no more than 22KB in size.
Avatars must be no more than 64 pixels x 64 pixels, and they must also be no more than 22KB in size. Hopefully they will not run anywhere near this limit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While the forums were down, some of us staff members were chatting a bit about increasing these limits.
Your answer above may affect a decision. There's still stuff we need to consider on our end, so I'm making no guarantees, but I'd like to see what you all think.
Once you've answered the poll question, post below about what pixel/filesize you'd like.
For reference I'll list a few sig images we've had people want to use in the past:
The 2nd biggest banner for the 2005 Child's Play charity was 468x60 pixels. It looked like this: <img src="http://www.childsplaycharity.org/img/cp468.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
The "classic" [read: largest] xfire miniprofile image is 440x111 pixels.
The "short & wide" xfire miniprofile image is 450x34 pixels.
Comments
i dont really mind if sigs may be wider, but as 6john says, taller would not be good
the problem is, somewhere there HAS to be a border, and even if you increase that border, there will still be people complaining because there are cool banners just 20 pixels wider...
my 2 cent
[Edit:] I would also support just easing up a bit on the enforcement of sig sizes.. Like, letting a just slightly oversized sig go on. Nothing unreasonable, though.
[Edit 2:]
This man is a dirty, rotten liar. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
(wow... didn't expect to see those results!)
ps... everyone that posted above me (excluding you marik) have oversized avatars... and marik holds an oversized signature <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
- Shockwave
BUT, I would like to see the 22kb bumped up to 44kb. Bandwidth expectancies of games today has gone way up- while we don't want to make sigs bigger and clutter things up, allowing a bit more variation in the sigs, maybe a tad bit of gif animation, I don't think would hurt, as long as it stayed in the 400x75 limitation.
(one of them was actually 22.001 or something insignificant and was still removed :<)
400x100 seems to be the standard at many other forums I've seen 25 pixels can't hurt that much...
One thing I remember when making sigs was that it was quite dificult at times to show proper detail on certain things.
Looks like I'm outnumbered 9 to 1 here though...
Also didn't the old site have some sort of automatic resizing of avatars? Currently many people's avatar that are constellation members are bigger than the rules apply. Most seem the same before the forums were down.
Because I don't even remember my avatar being this big on the forums, the ones right now are the actual size but I remember it being smaller for the forums.
One last thing, the size limit could be an increase(talking about bytes), unless forums have some sort of limited space.
Edit: Although I do have two sig pics, the combined power of them both is only 401x97 and a little more than 8kb. I'm breaking the laws by a little bit <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> , but you said you'd give us a little break from the rules while we're testing.
I say- raise the restrictions to match this gap.
(Apparantely my current XFire sig is breaking the restrictions. Look at the damn thing! It's tiny! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> )
Or
Maybe
Look
At
This One.
PS: My sig exactly matches the forum restrictions because the guy who made the sig image had to redo it so I could use it here.
your xfire sig is breaking the width, not the height. The space at the end only appears if your post is shorted in height than the left hand side user summary. Look at the post right about yours.
Or
Maybe
Look
At
This One.
PS: My sig exactly matches the forum restrictions because the guy who made the sig image had to redo it so I could use it here.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He means the gap this way ----------------------------------------------------------------------------->
As in he means we should expand the width restrictions to come closer to that gap.
Anyway, I have no objection to a slight width increase as long as the filesize restriction doesn't have to bloat too much.
I can probably fix that.
If anything the filesize that is allowed could be increased, but not the dimensions.
Its enough as it is currently.
Avatars are fine as-is.
Am I the only one that thinks signatures are totally overrated? I see no reason to spend time on one. Leave the restrictions as is or increase slightly, but don't bump up the file size much. Some people pay for bandwidth, and paying to see sh**** signatures wouldn't be too high on my list of things to do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh... If I were paying for bandwidth, I'd definitely turn sigs and avatars off. Posted images and smilies too, most likely. My Controls> Board Settings.
I'm quite content with the sizes as is. (Even though mine are broken right this second!) I'd personally lean towards whatever fits the mini XFire one.
- Shockwave
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
my xfire one is not the mini, ill change it
The sig's aren't distracting.
They don't fill up half the page.
They take less than a second to load.
The size limits for people to be creative and resourceful rather than just filling a huge image with crap.
On the other hand, tell people they can be any size at all, and you get sigs that take up half the page with pictures of some godawful anime character. And that person always has to be the one that posts 20 times per page, so your page length is increased ridiculously. Ugh. This is why I don't browse many other forums. Where was I going with this? Oh well. Sigs! Also welcome back folks.
Am I the only one that thinks signatures are totally overrated? I see no reason to spend time on one. Leave the restrictions as is or increase slightly, but don't bump up the file size much. Some people pay for bandwidth, and paying to see sh**** signatures wouldn't be too high on my list of things to do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My sentiments aswell
Which, by the way, is not distracting in the least, I see no harm in 400x100, it allows more detail.