Signature Image Proposal

Post by **Luke** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:55 pm

I'm seeing a lot of signatures with big images at the forum lately. While I've removed ones that are too big in the past, I'm thinking perhaps we should get a firm guideline in place.

I propose a one image maximum of 30,000 pixels (height x width) and no image taller than 140 pixels high.

In other words, you could have something the size of a standard banner (468 x 60), and you could have something slightly taller and not as wide, and anything in between there.

140 pixels is this tall and the maximum dimensions of an avatar...
<img src="http://www.ultimatedisney.com/images/g-i/incdvdt.jpg">

Does this sound reasonable? If everyone has a 300 x 225 image in their signature of every one of their posts, it becomes a bit of a pain to navigate through the forum, I think. I'm not requiring that they're lost altogether, but that they stay a reasonable size.

Thoughts?

Mr. Toad · Post by **Mr. Toad** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:03 pm

Absolutely, if anything even a bit smaller.

Maerj · Post by **Maerj** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:16 pm

Why have pics there at all? We have avatars, isn't that enough? No offense to anyone sportin' pics in their sigs.

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:39 pm

Yeah I think it's a very good idea. I agree with Maerj for the most part, but the banners can be cool to see.

-Aaron

MutantEnemy · Post by **MutantEnemy** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:51 pm

Its a very good idea,

BTW Luke you probably haven't read your email yet, but if you could, would you please shrink my banner to fit the new proposed banner size, I dont know how to fix this, Thanks

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:24 am

I say no. If someone wants an image that's why we have avatars for. Signatures are just words. saves up on bandwidth that way for those of us who dont have a picture on our signature when we come here we don't find that the site has spent all the bandwidth for the month. I think if someone wants a image on the signature they should pay a minimum amount for carrying such image.

Starion · Post by **Starion** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:31 am

I agree with MickeyMouseboy.

If you do allow images, please have an option that allows users to either disable the display of images in signatures or replace the images with a link to the image.

Also, restrict the image size to 468 x 60 and 300 x 225 if possible.

Good night

Mr. Toad · Post by **Mr. Toad** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:42 am

Ummm. I believe two people voted no(MMB and Starion) that meant yes. Either that or two that voted yes(aaron and I) meant no.

RJKD23 · Post by **RJKD23** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:24 pm

:::SIGH:::

okay, I removed the image in my SIGGY...

but Luke (or anyone else), could you explain to me HOW it affects the UD bandwidth even if I hosted the image with my personal web account?

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:42 pm

It's not just a matter of bandwith... a huge picture in a signature makes a thread very difficult to navigate, especially when it's someone who posts with regularity. It can also make pages take longer to load on those using slower computers or modems.

In general, a signature should be around the length of 5 lines of text, total... maybe less than that if it's an image because images separating posts can be distracting and elongate a page, whereas an avatar doesn't do that.

-Aaron

JiminyCrick91 · Post by **JiminyCrick91** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 2:03 pm

sorry but no

Post by **Luke** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:16 pm

Well I got enough of a response in favor of it that I'm going to follow my initial instinct and start enforcing this.

Starion · Post by **Starion** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:00 pm

Mr. Toad wrote:Ummm. I believe two people voted no(MMB and Starion) that meant yes. Either that or two that voted yes(aaron and I) meant no.

Mr. Toad is correct. I mean yes.

I don't know what I was thinking. My eyes saw one thing, but my brain said something else. I was confused.

Hennie · Post by **Hennie** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:02 pm

I like to see no images at all in the signatures

orestes. · Post by **orestes.** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:55 pm

I like images in signatures. Even my old computer loaded fast with them. Who still uses dial-up anyways?

indianajdp · Post by **indianajdp** » Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:59 pm

I agree w/ MMB (did I actually type that

).
Avatars are enough and additional images make it even more taxing for those that are on dial-up.

MickeyMousePal · Post by **MickeyMousePal** » Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:19 pm

I agree with MickeyMouseboy!!! Save bandwidth!!!!

Dan05 · Post by **Dan05** » Sun Feb 27, 2005 12:11 am

there's not alot of ppl with a pic in their signature, i have one but its quite small i think this idea is fine cause this way those who like using a pic in their sig can have one and those who don't like it don't have to use one

Mr. Toad · Post by **Mr. Toad** » Sun Feb 27, 2005 9:49 am

Orestes - there are still places that have no access to high bandwith except for unreliable satellite dishes.

Starion · Post by **Starion** » Sun Feb 27, 2005 12:14 pm

Mr. Toad wrote:Orestes - there are still places that have no access to high bandwith except for unreliable satellite dishes.

I think many developing countries use dial-up connections too. Some don't even have internet access in their homes.

I sometimes use dialup too.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Signature Image Proposal

Does this signature proposal sound like a good idea?

Signature Image Proposal