Do we need eye-candy skins ?

[LeftEyeNine]

By saying "eye-candy", I refer to the removal/broadening of limitation on attributes of sigs and extra pictures :

Only enabled in style Experimental at this moment to show the idea.

Go to userCP edit Options and enable Broadband user, you can enter an extra signature picture in UserCP/edit Profile if you haven't already done so. Then Select the Experimental skin and look at the board again. Not everyone has the extra picture enabled yet, so you may have to browse to one of your own posts. You'll see a signature and below that your extra picture, extended signature (for now).

I said no limits, but keep it reasonable, no jokes with multi megabyte pictures.


It will be enabled (option) in other skins, when users think it's good to have and when you have worked out among yourselves what the limits should be, filesize and picturedimensions. Please start a new topic in the Watchtower about it.

"Yes" is not enough if you do so, please make your suggestions on the broadened filesize and picture dimensions - keeping in mind that we'd not like to load half-page size sigs over and over again that would disrupt the focus and lessen the understandibility of what is posted actually.

I, personally vote for "yes". And my suggestion will be particularly on the sig limits. I'd like 50-60 kbs of sig filesize limits and a sig area of 300 pixels height restricted to a width of 700 pixels max.

What about you ?

[IrishMike]

I would love to build a shrine to RATM in my sig, but I can live with my sig right now as it is. I see no reason to increase the limits from the standard ones that are enforced now.

[Proletariat]

I've never understood why people are fond of signatures, let alone ones that chew up bandwidth. I probably just offended half the board, so I apologize, but I wanted to try to honor LEN's request of not just answering with one word.

[LeftEyeNine]

Actually, I've just noticed that I have neglected about why one would say "no" in the thread starter post. Sorry for that. Though it's just ok to vote "no" and go away, we'd like to hear concerns as well

[Byzantine Prince]

No, I think that Kemal picture is big enough. I have enough nausea from it as it is.

[TosaInu]

Just to explain: displaying and viewing big pictures is a choice for both the displayer and the viewer. People who don't want to see the extra pictures don't have to do anything. The broadband toggle in your userCP is off by default.

[Adrian II]

I've never understood why people are fond of signatures, let alone ones that chew up bandwidth. I probably just offended half the board, so I apologize, but I wanted to try to honor LEN's request of not just answering with one word.

I agree that sigs are toys for the mentally impaired. I know, I know, I apologise as well.

[Ianofsmeg16]

Ok, speaking of skins, i was messing about, looking to see what each one looks like, i looked at the pne on the bottom (PDM or something like that) and i cant get it back to the RTW style i usually have...can someone please help me?

[TosaInu]

The PDA skin is very basic. You need to fix it by using UserCP/Options.

[Ianofsmeg16]

The PDA skin is very basic. You need to fix it by using UserCP/Options.

Thanks for that Tosa!

[TosaInu]

There's some interest for the optional extra image. Since the code is already working, does not conflict with other code, since it's off by default and thus does not hurt Spartans nor narrowbanders and since it's an individual choice to enable it, I don't see much reason to not enable the option in all skins.

The question is now, since I don't want to play cop, what is fair? Dimensions and size. Content still has to be compatible with PG-13.

Can people who want to use this option and have some hardware/bandwidth to use this, comment on this please?

If you have narrowband or are not interested in using the option, you should not submit proposals. You can use any of the current skins/options.

The new dial up/lite skin would have been finished, but something went very wrong with it last week-end, so work on it started all over again. Sorry for that.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
10K limit seems to be too low for most people and playing the cop is tiresome indeed. I suggest a 100K limit instead. That would make all happy and won't lag on ADSL and higher.
.

[TosaInu]

You mean 100k for the normal sig Mouzafphaerre? The 10k limit for the current signatures is not subject to change at this moment.

Or do you mean 100k for the extra picture that can be displayed right below the signature and be viewed when a member wishes to view it?

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

The 10k limit for the current signatures is not subject to change at this moment.

That pretty much rests the case.
.

[TosaInu]

Not for the extra picture box Mouzafphaerre. Since that is an option for only an extra picture, narrowbanders don't have to suffer. In the meanwhile broadbanders who have enough hardware and like visuals, can use this.

Which limits do you propose for the extra box?

[Mikeus Caesar]

Testing this wonderful feature.

[LeftEyeNine]

...And my suggestion will be particularly on the sig limits. I'd like 50-60 kbs of sig filesize limits and a sig area of 300 pixels height restricted to a width of 700 pixels max.

[Reenk Roink]

It's fine as it is .

[Duke John]

...And my suggestion will be particularly on the sig limits. I'd like 50-60 kbs of sig filesize limits and a sig area of 300 pixels height restricted to a width of 700 pixels max.

Personally I don't care so much for the signatures since I have turned it off. But guests can not (or if they can they might not know how) and with these kind of dimensions pages turn into signature galleries with a bit of discussion between. If I were to visit the Org as a new member I would be put off by such large signatures since it gives me the impression that the members care more for their personal image then contributing to easy to read discussions.

Edit: I didn't know we could edit in the Watch Tower?

[LeftEyeNine]

Duke John,

the new dimensions and filesizes suggestions we have been asked for by Tosa are about the Broadband optional skins. When you tick the option, the extra placeholder for sigs is revealed. I don't think that guests are exposed to a broadband skin by default. Are they, Tosa ?

[Duke John]

I thought so already, but I also thought that it wouldn't hurt writing that not all of us want huge signatures

[Just A Girl]

dont think id be happy with 3 posts in 1 thread by a guy who had a 700 px sig..

700 pixels is a lot.... for some 1 using 800x600 Its LOADS!
(they probably wouldnt get all the sig in the screen at 1ce)
even at 1024x768
700px is more than 1/2 your viewing screen.
Then if you add there origionla sig above it.
And any txt they may have....
That ends up being 1 page which is nothing but 1 persons Signature.

No real probs with the idea.
But 700px. is Loads.....

Seems a bit exessive/indulgeant for any 1 to want as many pixels in a sig.

[LeftEyeNine]

I, personally vote for "yes". And my suggestion will be particularly on the sig limits. I'd like 50-60 kbs of sig filesize limits and a sig area of 300 pixels height restricted to a width of 700 pixels max.

I'm the first creature on earth quoting himself for the second time.. You know what, Duke John, that hurts indeed

[TosaInu]

This optional extra box is off by default. I'm pretty sure that it doesn't show for guest at all, but we'll double check.

Guest: off in Opera.
off in FireFox.

Anyone sees it in other browsers when not logged in?

[Just A Girl]

I cant even acces a user cp when im using No account...
I dont know of another way to acces the broadband switch,
So i guess its off But unless i can see any big sigs i cant guarantee thats right.
I can only asume im corect untill i get proven incorrect by finding a Broadband type sig,

using internet explorer btw,

[Mouzafphaerre]

Not for the extra picture box Mouzafphaerre. Since that is an option for only an extra picture, narrowbanders don't have to suffer. In the meanwhile broadbanders who have enough hardware and like visuals, can use this.

Which limits do you propose for the extra box?

.
The same, 100K would be fine.
.

[TosaInu]

Copperhaired Berserker!, ian_of_smeg16, King Jim II, littlegannon, Mikeus Caesar and mongoose voted yes. So, your proposals for size please?

[Ianofsmeg16]

To be honest, i think i've changed my mind, eye candy skins would be great, just not fair to those who dont have the internet speed to cope..

GAH! keep it as it is

[Monarch]

I have the net speed to cope easily, but still I'd prefer not. It's not slowness thats my problem it's just that there's little point. It's always annoyed me when people put multiple large banners in their sigs, I know I can chose not to see them but I find a like to read peoples small quotes and text in peoples signatures. Chosing not to see huge annoying banners would mean not seeing the interesting quotes/text as well.

[TosaInu]

Chosing not to see huge annoying banners would mean not seeing the interesting quotes/text as well.

There can't be quotes/text in the extra box, only one extra optional image.