Signatures Reply #45 – June 17, 2007, 09:03:01 PM Quote from: softtouch;155044DakotaEpic your sig is so wide that I have to move the display from side to side to read your posts. I only have a 17" screen.Hahaha, that bad huh?Ok, a couple facts.1024x768 is quickly becoming an outdated resolution. If many of you are running a modern LCD screen, the native resolution for that screen would probably be 1280x1024 or higher, running below your native resolution will actually decrease image quality.20th Anny......1280x960 is a true 4:3 resolution, 1280x1024 is the more common resolution and it is a 5:4. Not that it matters I guess, since you say your fine with it.Anyhow, I don't know where I'm going with this. Different strokes for different folks I guess. Quote Selected
Signatures Reply #46 – June 17, 2007, 09:46:29 PM Some of us are still using old monitors. :flame: Atleast until i hook up my 37" LCD TV to my Media Center PC. Quote Selected
Signatures Reply #47 – June 18, 2007, 12:16:47 AM Quote1024x768 is quickly becoming an outdated resolution.What about people that have older 12" laptops, with video cards soldered onto the motherboard that can't be changed?What about the people that cannot afford a new video card for their computer?What about people that have bad eyesight, or need a lower resolution (or larger type size) to view this board?Just because you have better resolution, don't assume that everyone else does. I program for the web for a living. It's still 800x600 as the standard. This site obviously fails miserably by that standard.With the number of people here willing to do Photoshop work, resizing a signature shouldn't be an issue. It seems that the only issue, then, is simply the willingness to do so for the sake of others. Quote Selected
Signatures Reply #48 – June 18, 2007, 12:42:18 AM Well I just turned off the signatures all together.... Thinking about doing the Avatars too. Quote Selected
Signatures Reply #50 – June 18, 2007, 01:16:12 AM Heh, you dont even need Photoshop to resize pics. You could even use paint for that, or the free program I have mentioned on this board many times called Irfan View. You can crop, resize, convert file types, etc etc. Quote Selected
Signatures Reply #51 – June 18, 2007, 02:26:43 AM Lol I think I struck a nerve with Eric. Haha they're all very valid reasons, I'm just stating that if you go out and buy a newer LCD screen, it's most likely going to have a native res of 1280x1024. I know a ton of people who run 1024x768 for it's better legibility or it is the limitations of their hardware. I work in professional A/V and 1024x768(XGA) is still the standard for projection, but more and more projectors are coming out that support higher resolutions.And I don't assume that everyone else does have a higher resolution because I do. I literally only jumped up to a higher res just recently. All in all I'm just like most other people who have the luxury of high speed internet, and a big monitor, so I sometimes I forget that there aren't people who have that and I don't pay much attention to it. Quote Selected
Signatures Reply #52 – June 18, 2007, 09:40:13 AM No nerve hit here...I just said what needed to be said.That's the problem with a community board: no matter what is tried, there's usually someone that is left behind, whether it be the size of a photo or their connection speed to the Internet. It is so easy to say, "Meh, screw the dial-up people" when you've got a fast connection. In a perfect world we could afford to do that. However, when at least half of the board administrators are still on dial-up (and I'm one of them) because there is no high-speed Internet choice at our homes, then reality sets in really quickly. We can barely administer from dialup, let alone sit through photos that are way too large to begin with. At least I have the luxury of a very fast DSL connection at work (no idea if Carm can escape dial-up hell at all).To be fair, most people that are picture-whoring in their threads have labeled the threads with a warning. And that's greatly appreciated from a dial-up point of view. Even the occasional large attached (or linked) photo is okay if it's needed to show detail, like a wiring harness for troubleshooting, for instance. Those, I don't think anyone has any major issues with.I guess all the admins can do is ask that people have some common courtesy and reduce their sig sizes as much as possible, or consider a text-only sig with links. We really don't want to put limits on you guys because the signatures have become an outlet for personal expression, and that's what makes this board so unique. But we just ask that you do so with regard to others, that's all. Nobody's yelling, nobody's becoming the Signature puppies...we're just asking. Quote Selected
Signatures Reply #53 – June 18, 2007, 10:01:08 AM I dunno if my sig image is considered too big...(from what's been said, probably)But, I thought I might mention that for the longest time over on Stangnet, they did NOT allow images in signatures, period.Recently, they relented on this stance, but set it up so that a person's signature only shows up once per thread, so you DON'T end up with the redundant signatures and sig images. Quote Selected
Signatures Reply #54 – June 18, 2007, 11:43:22 AM Would you guys say this is a realistic "rule of thumb?"Too big? Too small?I'm thinking that this should represent the upper limit of a signature's size. Anything that falls below it would be great, of course.Let's say we decide to use something like this as a measuring device. That's all well and good, but how do we enforce it? Well, I've been thinking about that, too.Is there any way to direct new members to a page with rules on posting? Perhaps integrated into the registration process? If so, then maybe we could integrate a size limit into the forum rules.If that isn't possible, I suppose we could create a "sticky" thread with said information. Quote Selected
Signatures Reply #55 – June 18, 2007, 11:51:23 AM I guess the thing I don't like about some of those size limits is that if you have an image that ISN'T a banner, or banner-ish, it ends up looking squished and awful.The image in my signature, for example, I tried to make smaller before using it, and if I make it any smaller than it is now it looks like and you can't make out any of the details. Quote Selected
Signatures Reply #56 – June 18, 2007, 12:08:00 PM This is going a bit far. As it has been stated before, if you have dial-up, block sigs. Keeping the sigs reasonably small out of respect is one thing, giving us parameters of image size and font size is over the top. Enforcing? Quote Selected
Signatures Reply #57 – June 18, 2007, 12:29:48 PM Well, I'm out of ideas. :DI know none of us are big on having a bunch of rules here, but we have to have some kind of limit on signatures.Garrett, as much as I love that image, there is a lot of stuff in there. It takes up 50% of my browser's viewing screen. Is there a way you can lessen the font size of your mods?Again, I'm not trying to pick on people. I just think we can all have creative signatures using a reasonable amount of space. Quote Selected
Signatures Reply #58 – June 18, 2007, 12:46:29 PM Understandable.I would hate to see the sigs go away. i check out the links to forum peeps from time 2 time.Red_LX. I like that gauge set up u got. Nice pics on the site too. i need to check out others more often. allot u guys make my yello rod look like trash.:hick: Quote Selected
Signatures Reply #59 – June 18, 2007, 01:28:20 PM 50%?I sense a slight exaggeration :pOh yeah, my car looks like trash up close, trust me. Peeling clearcoat does nothing to enhance a car's image. Quote Selected
Topic: Signatures (Read 11524 times)
previous topic - next topic
