Signatures

**TosaInu** · 01-20-2011, 22:40

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?

.

**TosaInu** · 01-24-2011, 18:36

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.

**Vuk** · 01-24-2011, 19:16

The 800 width is reasonable I think.

**drone** · 01-24-2011, 21:19

I would agree. 800 pixels matches Beirut's un-spoilerized picture width rule for the Babe Thread.

**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?

**Yoyoma1910** · 01-25-2011, 07:55

800 fits nicely

**Subotan** · 01-24-2011, 22:38

1200 is fine for my screen

**Greyblades** · 01-24-2011, 22:50

Its going off the side on mine, and it's a 1440x900.

**TosaInu** · 01-24-2011, 23:10

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.