Rules Signature Rule Update

[Keldora Dragon]

Keldora, what do you mean by resize? If it allows a fixed-max-size sig we'll go with that.

That's what I meant. I heard Archaic saying something about that sort of feature awhile ago. I could be wrong though.

 

[TeamGalacticMercury]

Height = Length

I'm having problems understanding. Do you mean, 160x160 or 160 height and however long a standard box of text(the box that holds the text that you are reading now)? I'm lost. The reason I am asking is my banner fits nicely in that box, and really any smaller would blur the text inside my banner.

 

[Blazaking]

160 pixles Height.

 

[TeamGalacticMercury]

Okay, is mine fine?

 

[Captain Falcon]

Yup. No more spoilers in signatures.

That doesn't make much sense. The reason spoilers were used in many signatures was to allow for more freedom with image size without clogging up threads with extremely long signatures.

Basically,

Spoiler

really large (640x480) image

seems better than

smaller image (400x160) outside of spoiler.

As for myself, since I don't have images in my signature, I can easily adapt, but it's going to be hard for other members.

There's also the issue of legibility. On a screen resolution of 800x600, 400x160 is half the width of the screen, while on a much larger resolution like 1920x1080, however, 400x160 isn't even a quarter of the screen's width. I got in trouble on another forum that used relative screen size rules (no more than a quarter of the screen in height), even though from my perspective I was way under, just because my system had a much higher resolution than the admin's. I'd say that once the forum's original signature rules are set, stick with those and don't change them.

 

[Our Wasted Years]

That doesn't make much sense. The reason spoilers were used in many signatures was to allow for more freedom with image size without clogging up threads with extremely long signatures.

Basically,

Spoiler

really large (640x480) image

seems better than

smaller image (400x160) outside of spoiler.

As for myself, since I don't have images in my signature, I can easily adapt, but it's going to be hard for other members.

There's also the issue of legibility. On a screen resolution of 800x600, 400x160 is half the width of the screen, while on a much larger resolution like 1920x1080, however, 400x160 isn't even a quarter of the screen's width. I got in trouble on another forum that used relative screen size rules (no more than a quarter of the screen in height), even though from my perspective I was way under, just because my system had a much higher resolution than the admin's. I'd say that once the forum's original signature rules are set, stick with those and don't change them.

It's not really an issue of common sense. The larger of a image you have and the more you have the longer it takes for the page to load. Plus spoilers also make signatures looks ugly.

Signatures were never meant to be big or hold very large images. Like I said, experiment with image editing software and make something work. You have 2 weeks.

 

[$aturn¥oshi]

Images in a spoiler tag still have to load just as any other image outside one. Too many large images (even in spoilers) can cause lag for various users.

 

[Captain Falcon]

It's not really an issue of common sense. The larger of a image you have and the more you have the longer it takes for the page to load. Plus spoilers also make signatures looks ugly.

Signatures were never meant to be big or hold very large images. Like I said, experiment with image editing software and make something work. You have 2 weeks.

I just fixed mine. And I understand the loading time issues (I've had to fix them on websites in the past). But I also understand that some people (not me) don't have older computers and don't understand why the changes are required. I made my previous post so that the question could be addressed, and then to make a suggestion about the rules changes. The only reason I'm opposed is because others would have a hard time trying to understand why these changes are being implemented. Other than that, I completely agree with the new rules except for a few small details.

 

[Takoto]

Is mine alright? Not sure how to measure exactly how large the signature is .__.

Someone tell me so I know whether or not to crop the Hazama banner/remove the text/ect.

 

[evkl]

There's also the issue of legibility. On a screen resolution of 800x600, 400x160 is half the width of the screen, while on a much larger resolution like 1920x1080, however, 400x160 isn't even a quarter of the screen's width. I got in trouble on another forum that used relative screen size rules (no more than a quarter of the screen in height), even though from my perspective I was way under, just because my system had a much higher resolution than the admin's. I'd say that once the forum's original signature rules are set, stick with those and don't change them.

Once again, this is ten lines:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

And it'll be ten lines for you whatever your display is. The reason we're doing this is because, first, the spoiler tag will need to be recoded when we upgrade to vB4. We don't want half the forum running around with broken signatures. Second, as has been said, pics in sig tags still load and can slow down our users on slower connections.

The only reason I'm opposed is because others would have a hard time trying to understand why these changes are being implemented. Other than that, I completely agree with the new rules except for a few small details.

I think I addressed why in my posts throughout this thread--the spoiler tag will break when we go to vB4, sigs were never meant to be as big as they've become, it can lead to slow loading times, and it's unsightly. We're still catering to older computers because it's the lowest common denominator on the forums--we don't tweak everything for those with the highest-performing, newest systems.

 

[Kthleen]

Is mine alright? Not sure how to measure exactly how large the signature is .__.

Your sig is a total of 177px tall. If you take away the text or the fanclub pics, it'll be about 153px tall.

 

[Takoto]

Your sig is a total of 177px tall. If you take away the text or the fanclub pics, it'll be about 153px tall.

Thanks, dude.

 

[Legendary Master]

A simple way to figure out how big a picture in your signature is to right click it, go to properties, and look at the demensions. If the second number is over 160, then it is too big.

 

[Ino-Chan]

Just wanted to say "thank you" for the new size limit. And I'm actually not being sarcastic. I'm one of the ones who have lag problems.

I believe mine is okay correct?

 

[Caitlin]

Ah, good. I've always been a fan of minimalistic sigs and I'm glad to see some enforcement. There are other forums I visit where the sig length restrictions are not enforced and I see sigs that are upwards of 700px tall :|

I'm a bit worried about the 6 sprites limit as I plan to expand my number images a bit soon, but meh. I'll figure something out.

Edit: As for your sig, Ino-chan, the image is 210px tall, not to mention the text below it. It's not gonna fit.

 

[Stardust Reverie]

Ah, new rules, that clears things up. I had no idea of this until I got a warning.

Anyway, mine alright?

 

[Kasumi]

Yours is okay, Hakurei Miko.

 

[Exxthus]

Ah, good. I've always been a fan of minimalistic sigs and I'm glad to see some enforcement. There are other forums I visit where the sig length restrictions are not enforced and I see sigs that are upwards of 700px tall :|

^ This. Good on you for a size restriction. Sigs the size of Manhattan bother me a lot. D: (Incidentally, is mine alright or shall I remove some things?)

 

[evkl]

Exxthus, you show as being...maybe 10 or so pixels over to me.

 

[Kthleen]

(Incidentally, is mine alright or shall I remove some things?)

Your sig's 189 px tall. Losing three of those lines of text will bring it to ~154px. Dropping 2 would bring it to ~166px.