Signature sizes

[Omar]

Now, I understand there's a signature height limit. 200px, that's more than enough, and it doesn't hamper a viewer's browsing of the board.

But big widths don't change anything, as long as they don't stretch the page. And as long as the file size is kept at 40kb or under, it shouldn't take any longer to load than the standard sizes we have now.

On a 1024*768 screen, I found the signature div is 750px wide. Remove 10px for the padding on each side, you have 730px left for your signature. I think a 700px maximum wouldn't hurt at all. Thanks for considering this :)

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

I don't like it.

Limits... Limits.... Limits...

Because you have a small screen we don't have to suffer.

[Omar]

I don't like it.

Limits... Limits.... Limits...

Because you have a small screen we don't have to suffer.

Uhm, I suggested making the limit higher. I don't see how that causes you to suffer since you can keep your sig as big as it is now, or have it even wider. This has literally no negative impact as far as I can tell.

[Racheya]

Tbh I think signatures should be kept to a maximum width of what they are currently and here's why:

 

Not everyone has a 1000andsomething wide screen, some people are running on smaller screens than that. I have quite a wide laptop screen, but my brother downstairs is running on a rubbishy CRT monitor.

 

You might ask - well why should we suffer because they have small screens? But I ask you - Why should THEY suffer because you have a big screen? For us having a small signature size doesn't really cause any problems or effect the functionality of the forums. If we were to have 700px signatures then people with small screens might have their page stretched and anybody who knows what that's like knows it's horrible to have a stretchy forum page.

 

There would also be issues with making the graphics themselves. For graphic makers, such as myself, we want to save our images in the best PNG quality they can be. With the limits as they currently are, unless you use the maximum image size you usually don't have problems with image size (as in their kb). By having a longer image, people might need to save their signatures in lower quality jpegs, which would just be ugly.

 

And come on really, how big do you need your signature to be? :unsure:

[Omar]

Tbh I think signatures should be kept to a maximum width of what they are currently and here's why:

 

Not everyone has a 1000andsomething wide screen, some people are running on smaller screens than that. I have quite a wide laptop screen, but my brother downstairs is running on a rubbishy CRT monitor.

Yeah, I'm running on a 7-year-old CRT myself. Really, unless your screen is below 1000 pixels wide, a 700px signature wouldn't stretch the board.

 

You might ask - well why should we suffer because they have small screens? But I ask you - Why should THEY suffer because you have a big screen?

Because as of January '09, 4% of the internet population has a 800*600px display. And 96% has a higher resolution.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

 

For us having a small signature size doesn't really cause any problems or effect the functionality of the forums. If we were to have 700px signatures then people with small screens might have their page stretched and anybody who knows what that's like knows it's horrible to have a stretchy forum page.

 

I already addressed that.

 

There would also be issues with making the graphics themselves. For graphic makers, such as myself, we want to save our images in the best PNG quality they can be. With the limits as they currently are, unless you use the maximum image size you usually don't have problems with image size (as in their kb). By having a longer image, people might need to save their signatures in lower quality jpegs, which would just be ugly.

 

Well then don't make your signatures so big if you know they're going to be detailed and heavy. I have a 111*638px wide PNG sitting on my desktop and weighing in at 10.63kb, a tad more than a quarter of what's allowed.

 

And come on really, how big do you need your signature to be? :unsure:

Need? I don't need one. I want one. And if it's virtually not going to harm anyone, then it might as well be as big as it can.

[tripsis]

I guess I don't really care that much either way but I'm against the idea. I hate browsing a forum where there are just huge signatures. I find them annoying, distracting and clutter the page. I can't imagine why you'd need more room in a signature. Okay, you WANT more room - but why? Your signature is not an image gallery. If you want more room for pictures you can use the gallery feature. But we don't need people displaying heaps of images in their signature. If you want to show off more pictures, use a website like Uzzisoft that will rotate the pictures for you in ONE image.

[obfuscator]

I don't think signatures should go to a full 700 wide, but I think 500px wide is a fair compromise. As some have addressed, there is no need for more, but as others have addressed, it won't hurt and could be useful for some.

[Omar]

I guess I don't really care that much either way but I'm against the idea. I hate browsing a forum where there are just huge signatures. I find them annoying, distracting and clutter the page. I can't imagine why you'd need more room in a signature. Okay, you WANT more room - but why? Your signature is not an image gallery. If you want more room for pictures you can use the gallery feature. But we don't need people displaying heaps of images in their signature. If you want to show off more pictures, use a website like Uzzisoft that will rotate the pictures for you in ONE image.

1) You're thinking of taller sigs, not wider.

2) I'm not asking for more room. I'm asking for the right to use the allocated room to the maximum. That might sound like I'm just rewording it, but this wouldn't be adding anymore square inches to the board, it would just be using the space we have right now more efficiently.

3) I personally only want to show one sig per, well, signature.

[Johannas]

This idea has been brought up many times before, and it was only recently that they increased the signature limits - don't push your luck ;)

 

I don't think it needs to be updated again.

 

Edit, to add.

The current limit is 450px x 200px x 100kb

 

Even if you were to 'reword' it, for instance 550px x 100px, or 350px x 300px, people would still create signatures such as 10px x 640px. Maybe a bit too much me thinks.

[tripsis]

I guess I don't really care that much either way but I'm against the idea. I hate browsing a forum where there are just huge signatures. I find them annoying, distracting and clutter the page. I can't imagine why you'd need more room in a signature. Okay, you WANT more room - but why? Your signature is not an image gallery. If you want more room for pictures you can use the gallery feature. But we don't need people displaying heaps of images in their signature. If you want to show off more pictures, use a website like Uzzisoft that will rotate the pictures for you in ONE image.

1) You're thinking of taller sigs, not wider.

2) I'm not asking for more room. I'm asking for the right to use the allocated room to the maximum. That might sound like I'm just rewording it, but this wouldn't be adding anymore square inches to the board, it would just be using the space we have right now more efficiently.

3) I personally only want to show one sig per, well, signature.

You personally may only want to show one signature per signature but that doesn't mean that everyone does. There are plenty of people who put two or more images next to each other. And if you want room for a wider picture, again you can use the gallery to show it off.

[Danqazmlp]

I don't really see the need for it. If it can't fit in the signature limits, it might as well just go into the gallery.

[n_odie]

I often find myself looking at the forum from my cell phone and really appreciate the sigs as they are. It fits perfectly into the screen. I also think that larger sigs seem to detract from the thread as a whole, it becomes more image than text.

[Omar]

You personally may only want to show one signature per signature but that doesn't mean that everyone does. There are plenty of people who put two or more images next to each other. And if you want room for a wider picture, again you can use the gallery to show it off.

I don't necessarily want to show off art.

I honestly doubt this would make the forum cluttered.

 

I wholly agree that there is no need for it, but need isn't what this is about.

[Racheya]

I think it would make it look more cluttered. If we have bigger signatures - even by width - it draws the eye to the signatures not the person's post really.

[Gandorf61]

Why not just shrink the image to the proper size?

 

 

It fits within the dimension limits and looks just as good. I can't see any image needing such a huge width on a forum.

 

I would agree with changing the dimensions to 200x500 but even then is it really necessary to have? Signatures are meant to be small images showing one's personality, not huge banners that half the time end up being bigger than one's post. One thing to consider is that while most people have fairly large monitors, not everyone devotes their entire screen to just one webpage. I know many times I have Runescape open on one side of my screen and a small window for tip.it on the other side. Having wider images would stretch out all the posts and make it very messy to view the forums.

 

Basically when you look at it you have to think what is better. Is it worth taking up the space just for the sake of it or is making the forum viewable for everyone on any size screen a better choice?

[Omar]

Why not just shrink the image to the proper size?

 

 

It fits within the dimension limits and looks just as good. I can't see any image needing such a huge width on a forum.

 

I would agree with changing the dimensions to 200x500 but even then is it really necessary to have? Signatures are meant to be small images showing one's personality, not huge banners that half the time end up being bigger than one's post. One thing to consider is that while most people have fairly large monitors, not everyone devotes their entire screen to just one webpage. I know many times I have Runescape open on one side of my screen and a small window for tip.it on the other side. Having wider images would stretch out all the posts and make it very messy to view the forums.

 

Basically when you look at it you have to think what is better. Is it worth taking up the space just for the sake of it or is making the forum viewable for everyone on any size screen a better choice?

In this specific case, the dots inside the heart look weird.

A simple solution to any stretching of the page is slightly changing the CSS so if anything stretches outside the sig div, it crops it off.

As for the sig being bigger than the post, that's often already the case.

[Youmu]

Stretching the signature size isn't really necessary.

 

Besides, not everyone cares about their signature.

[dsavi]

I would like it very much if this change was not implemented. It's bad enough as it is. Sure, it would more than fit on my 20" screen, but it's just annoying and visually distracting.

[Wachtwoord]

Besides that, I like to multi task, so I only use a small part of my screen for the forums. Larger sigs would lead to annoying stretching.

[Rainy_Day]

Signatures aren't a necessity in any forum, and I think they are more than generous as it currently stands. As N_Odie, I also often browse Tip.it using my phone, and large signatures cause the load time to severely increase, or simply stretch the page to make it harder to view. We've been more than generous in extending signature limits in the past, I see no need to warrant a further increase.

[Omar]

Besides, not everyone cares about their signature.

...what?

 

Rainy, I don't want to seem like I'm defending this idea any longer, but I've addressed the load time and stretching issues already.

[Ouchy]

If you're browsing Tip.It from your phone, or other portable device (iPod Touch/iPhone), or you find it distracting, OR you have bad internet, you should really have signatures turned off anyway...

[tripsis]

If you're browsing Tip.It from your phone, or other portable device (iPod Touch/iPhone), or you find it distracting, OR you have bad internet, you should really have signatures turned off anyway...

If browsing from your phone, sure, but not if you find it distracting. I enjoy looking at signatures as they are now, because they're interesting and a great way to identify people. But if they were to get much bigger, THEN they would be annoying and distracting and I wouldn't want to have to turn them off.

[Kaphias]

If you're browsing Tip.It from your phone, or other portable device (iPod Touch/iPhone), or you find it distracting, OR you have bad internet, you should really have signatures turned off anyway...

Unless I'm mistaken, the signatures on/off option is a option attached to your account, not your device. Therefore, one who wanted to see signatures while browsing on their computer but did not want to see signatures while on their phone would have to go into their options and turn the option on/off every time they switched devices. A bit of a pain, yeah?

[Omar]

Hence my suggestion to edit the CSS.