View Full Version : Signatures
Hello,
It's some time ago that we had a discussion about signatures. Most specifically the pictures in them. People can turn them off completely, but then they also miss text and links. That text can be advertising from a member to visit a topic or to try a mod. So, he can be disadvantageous for a member to switch it off completely. However, when the person experiences a lot of loading lag from the pictures, he may decide to turn it all off.
Of course, some members have more to show, want to see more and also have the hardware to see it. That's why we have the extra picture and broadband option.
The limit for the normal picture was set to 10 kb back then. What would be an acceptable file size for todays low specs?
NIKOMAHOS
01-18-2011, 20:02
Nice thread TosaInu.
I will be back soon with my and hopefully team's oppinion.
NIKOMAHOS
Hooahguy
01-18-2011, 20:18
I would say a 60kb limit is plenty.
But lets also consider that the vast majority of people are not running dial-up, so really banners shouldnt be much of a problem anymore.
I think the size could and should indeed be upped. But limit might not be bad to keep for those few who might use old computers,... Plus too large and annoying sig banners can be avoided this way somewhat as well. 50kb 60kb is plenty indeed.
XSamatan
01-18-2011, 20:44
An increase of this limit up to 20/30 kb is enough for me. What shouldn't be changed are the rules for the size of the sig alltogether, too large signatures just fracture threads and interferes with good reading.
Another point which should be taken in consideration are the mobile Users, more pictures are slowing down loading times and even if you got a mobile-internet-flatrate, those are often throttled after some amount of data.
XSamatan
Good point about mobile users XSmatan,
Do you mean the sidekicks or the mobile laptops?
NIKOMAHOS
01-18-2011, 21:51
What shouldn't be changed are the rules for the size of the sig alltogether, too large signatures just fracture threads and interferes with good reading.
I agree with XSamatan.
About the size my oppinion is to about 50-60KB.
Will be back soon...
NIKOMAHOS
M to the A
01-18-2011, 22:19
25kb :P
The Celtic Viking
01-18-2011, 23:00
What shouldn't be changed are the rules for the size of the sig alltogether, too large signatures just fracture threads and interferes with good reading.
Beyond this, I don't care much for my own sake. I've got a pretty fast connection so I'm unlikely to feel any hurt from this, though I don't know just how many kb is to be considered "much" (or indeed how much we have now). Still, I need no more than this anyway.
It's 10 kb for images in the normal signature and ??? for the extra one. I don't think we did put a cap on the extra one really.
As long as signatures don't interfere with reading, I don't see any problem with them...
XSamatan
01-19-2011, 00:39
I am referring to handhelds (I-Phone and all the other smartphones), the resolutions available are too small so that large signatures become really annoying. Same goes probably for Netbooks.
As longs as the on screen size stays and doesn't get out of hand I see no problem by increasing the size.
XSamatan
pevergreen
01-19-2011, 00:44
I'd say put the filesize up to 50kb, but leave the dimension restrictions in place.
Cute Wolf
01-19-2011, 13:27
I'd said 80 Kb limit will be good... but give some dimension restriction (not more than 1000 x 400 pixels, or somewhat)
pevergreen
01-19-2011, 13:42
For those unaware, current sig rules:
Pictures
Pictures in signatures are not the occasional used pictures to illustrate something, but show up in every topic. It's already possible that one page contains 25 different 4.5 kb avatars. Users with slow modems will experience serious trouble when loading pages with many (larger) graphics.
Pictures are limited and the limits applies to all images together in the signature:
-10,240 bytes max.
-no sound.
-max 500 pixels wide, max 150 pixels high.
This doesn't apply to occasionaly used pictures in posts, though one should keep in mind that 56k modem users should be able to download it within a reasonable time.
Scrolling topics containing high signatures is considered difficult, so they are limited there too. A signature can be 10 lines high, 500 characters long, 200 pixels high or what limit is reached first.
Obviously 56k isnt such a big deal anymore, but having big pictures in the sig is still annoying.
The current max size, if you can't visualise it, is this:
http://eaglelakesleddograces.com/img_board01.jpg
IMO, plenty big enough. Just up the file size limit, and we are fine.
Togakure
01-19-2011, 15:50
I agree with Pevergreen That looks to be a nice size--not too big, but big enough. I wouldn't mind it extending further to the right of the screen, but height-wise, it's just right.
XSamatan
01-19-2011, 17:15
I agree with PevergreenI wouldn't mind it extending further to the right of the screen, but height-wise, it's just right.
sounds good
Whilst we're at it, can we increase the custom avatar size as well, please?
100 kb isn't enough Subotan?
The profile picture limit is 9.8 kb, which means that:
http://sardoose.rustedlogic.net/reviews/jturbo/avatar/johnny03.jpg
is too big
Gah! They are different settings from what I see in my usercp. Sorry. I'll set it to 25600 bytes to all (25 kb), easy to read ;)
The board considers 65535 default, 64 kb.
I don't have a handheld myself XSamatan, but aren't those best served by a special skin anyway? We used to have that years ago, there are vb 4 compatible ones. I'll install one.
That mobile style used to be great. Now there's a bug in vbul messing it up :)
Mouzafphaerre
01-21-2011, 10:14
.
100 K? :hide:
.
Thank you for the input so far, please keep it coming. I'll launch a new question to get it further.
The average is 80 kb so far, that's quite a jump up from the 10 kb we have now. Consider we go up that much, everyone uses it to the max and it turns out it's not working that great, can we throttle down then?
If it's going to be 80 kb, the average, who expects to get trouble because of it?
I guess we should keep the current height of max 150 pixels, but the width may be expanded a bit perhaps. When you are browsing this forum, how wide can you see pictures in pixels? I'll add some colored bars to my signature to help you estimate.
The 800 width is reasonable I think.
I would agree. 800 pixels matches Beirut's un-spoilerized picture width rule for the Babe Thread. ~D
Veho Nex
01-24-2011, 21:53
I wonder, is there a way to make it so that if the sig gets beyond a certain size it automatically hides it in spoilers?
1200 is fine for my screen :beam:
Greyblades
01-24-2011, 22:50
Its going off the side on mine, and it's a 1440x900.
That might be right Greyblades. I guess there's some 75 pixels on both the right and the left of the board form. Then there's some 180 used for the left part where the avatars and usernames are. A 1440 screen probably can't display a 1200 pixel picture in a post.
Sjakihata
01-25-2011, 00:38
as little as possible
pevergreen
01-25-2011, 01:00
I'd say 800 wide then. Plently of people still use 1280x1024. Or 1024x768.
Though with almost double the size, the increase in the limit needs to be even higher.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-25-2011, 01:48
Width of 700 fits, just barely. 650 would be easier.
Tellos Athenaios
01-25-2011, 03:05
Well, the easiest thing to do is scrollbars using the CSS overflow property and setting maximum limits on signature size. (Would use a number of ems on the vertical axis, and percent width on the horizontal one.) Alternatively, if Tosa can add scripts a bit of javascript to check size limits and automatically inject the show/hide code into the page could work even better.
Yoyoma1910
01-25-2011, 07:55
800 fits nicely
Width of 700 fits, just barely. 650 would be easier.
:yes:
pevergreen
01-25-2011, 18:06
What resolution are you guys using.
All of them fit fine on mine, and I would presume nearly all on any normal monitor.
I have tried it on my 2 laptops, my tower, and three computers at school, and on all of them 800 was the max that did not overflow.
What resolution are you guys using.
"Widescreen" laptop with 1366 * 768.
XSamatan
01-26-2011, 14:50
800 is good!
Cute Wolf
01-26-2011, 15:37
in my office comp (ok, ok, I surf the net at work, I admit it :grin:) 2048 x 1536....
but my personal laptop is a bit smaller... 1280 x 768 widescreen...
That's huge Cute Wolf. So 1800 during your office hours? ~:)
I'm guessing overflow, spoilers and resizers would have drawbacks too: it would make it less attractive for people who can't see it.
I think we can narrow the list of options down a bit now, since most/everyone likes it larger I've deleted the 500. 1200 and 1000 seem an option for a few, so we skip those too. 650 was the lowest, so we make that a candidate too for the new max choice.
I heard some people about 700 just fitting, I'm guessing that's because of a screen resolution smaller than 1024?
NIKOMAHOS
01-26-2011, 20:26
800 is good!
I agree with you my friend.
NIKOMAHOS
a completely inoffensive name
01-26-2011, 20:48
What is the default length right now?
It's max 500 pixels wide now.
800 flows off my screen and causes horizontal scrolling.
700 oozes over the edge of the post frame but doesn't cause scrolling.
650 fits snugly into the post.
I'd prefer 650 or less, but 700 i don't mind much. 800 is too much; if anyone puts an 800 pixel image in their sig I will adblock it and you won't be getting any views from me. :wink2:
And yes, I have a 1024x768 15" 4:3 monitor, it's a dinosaur! But does that invalidate my opinion? :laugh4:
Edit: bear in mind that some people view this site from their microscopic notebooks as well (especially when they should be studying/doing something productive....). <_<
a completely inoffensive name
01-27-2011, 12:28
My screen resolution is 1600x900 and 800 is great for me. However, if it doesn't work with many people then 700 is ok as well. In fact, any increase from the default 500 is great imo.
Cute Wolf
01-27-2011, 20:11
That's huge Cute Wolf. So 1800 during your office hours? ~:)
I'm guessing overflow, spoilers and resizers would have drawbacks too: it would make it less attractive for people who can't see it.
what you expect from someone working at laboratory? :grin:
all the high tech stuff should be used for some reasons.... :D
all the high tech stuff should be used for some reasons.... :D
Reminds me of the machine that says 'ping!'. :laugh4:
Big monitors like that are used for some bio-molecular research?
Megas Methuselah
01-27-2011, 23:10
Are you guys hatin' on my sig?
Hatin on your sig? What do you mean Megas?
Ibn-Khaldun
01-28-2011, 06:28
I prefer 700.
Hooahguy
01-28-2011, 06:29
If I had to guess then Megas is saying that this thread was made because his sig is quite large.
Dont worry, Megas, no one is hatin' on your sig.
Megas Methuselah
01-28-2011, 23:32
Right on.
Thanks for all the opinions and comments on this.
I think we should go with 650 wide, as that's the increase that works for all of us. I think we can make nice looking signatures that wide within 50 kb. So I like to suggest for the maximum amount of combined graphics in signatures: 150 pixels high, 650 pixels wide and 50 kb in size. People just wanting to update their signatures to those new max can do so, I'll fix the settings in a minute.
I'd like to move to the next step in this discussion now:
I'm not a fan of Flash as I immediately get reminded of my 64 kb modem and way too big (and impossible to skip) intro pages in Flash, but I saw the nice sides of it too. In the past we had some nice animated Flash signatures of say rolling landscapes (animated gif would also work). What do we feel about it today?
Megas Methuselah
02-02-2011, 23:35
What do we feel about it today?
I think it's all good. More importantly, I'm really loving this democratic process we're currently undergoing. Awesome.
I wouldn't mind animated gifs in sigs, but I'm not too crazy about the flash. Does this mean we get siggies with sound?
pevergreen
02-03-2011, 03:59
I wouldn't mind animated gifs in sigs, but I'm not too crazy about the flash. Does this mean we get siggies with sound?
I would be ok with:
No sound
Small file size (since I want to see sigs, and I load 80 posts per page, I don't want to be loading mb's every time)
Annoying gimmicky/flashing ones removed.
I wouldn't mind animated gifs in sigs, but I'm not too crazy about the flash. Does this mean we get siggies with sound?
That was about my thought about Flash as well. But Flash can be used for nice and subtle art too, without sound. I'm not sure though whether this board supports Flash files in signatures (by default). I'll try whether it actually works.
The limit would still be 50 kb. It's possible to make a very nice Flash animation of only 10 kb.
Edit: it's not possible by default, but this little edit may do the trick. There's always animated gif, so the question still stands. Is that good, not, should there be any extra limitations on it?
Togakure
02-04-2011, 11:11
I don't really care, but I prefer no animations. I find them distracting. I used them myself on other boards in the past, but stopped for this reason. As long as I can filter them out though, it really doesn't matter to me. I am strongly opposed to sound of any kind unless I can turn it permanently off here on the board without having to use my PC sound settings.
Tellos Athenaios
02-10-2011, 00:12
No Flash, no Java please. Especially Flash is rather slow and often uses excessive amounts of CPU time for anything non trivial. Plus you might as well open the flood gates of advert/spam and allow arbitrary JavaScript on the page, at least that's fast and lightweight in a modern browser.
Hello Tellos Athenaios,
That's my first encounter with Flash: monstrous slow Flash intro pages that said absolutely nothing.
The security risk is an argument.
Hello,
Thank you all for the feedback. No flash or animated gif, we'll also keep it plain and simple and remove the extra signature now the normal one has gone up.
The total of pictures in your signature should be at most:
150 pixels high
650 pixels wide
50 kb in size
But no stacking of 150*150 pictures that force people to scroll. As any rule, this one can be dodged, keep it nice for us all please.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.