Town Hall Poll and Discussion: Size Limits on Signatures

[Tned]

Ok, something that has been talked about for a long, long time, but we haven't addressed to date.

Time to decide on size limits for signatures.

There are four options, with the final one being no size limit.

Here are three options to help visualize the variouis size options:

Option 1:
http://www.broncos07.com/downloads/750_150.jpg

Option 2:
http://www.broncos07.com/downloads/750_250.jpg

Option 3:
http://www.broncos07.com/downloads/750_400.jpg

[frauschieze]

I voted for 750x250 but I would be fine with 750x150. :salute:

[Tned]

I voted for 750x250 but I would be fine with 750x150. :salute:

Back when the Mane had sigs, I think there's were 700x100, which is a bit on the small size.

Mania's limit is 750x400

Anything below 800 on the width should be fine, as the vast majority of people run at minimum 800x600 resolutions and most are 1024x600+ or greater, so anything 800 or less in width should prevent side to side scrolling, so the height is the big thing.

[frauschieze]

Back when the Mane had sigs, I think there's were 700x100, which is a bit on the small size.

Mania's limit is 750x400

Personally, I like small sigs. They are less disrupting to the flow of the posts. Just a preference. :D

[KCL]

I think the 250 size would suffice.

[broncogirl7]

I think 750X150 would be sufficient and not take up all your bandwith.

[turftoad]

I also like the smaller sigs.

Rather than 10 pages in a thread, it would just about cute the pages in half. It makes reading the threads a lot more user friendly IMO.

[KCL]

I also like the smaller sigs.

Rather than 10 pages in a thread, it would just about cute the pages in half. It makes reading the threads a lot more user friendly IMO.

Agreed...I probably have too much stuff in my sig but IMO do people really need to have several pictures of something? ;)

[NameUsedBefore]

The size of people's sigs has never bothered me unless it was just like huge pictures stacked on top of one another or annoyingly large and bolded/colored text.

[Tned]

The size of people's sigs has never bothered me unless it was just like huge pictures stacked on top of one another or annoyingly large and bolded/colored text.

That's really the main issue. At times, people have put multiple, large stacked pictures. That's why people have been asking for size limits for quite some time.

Since some people hate any rules discussions, figured we might as well just rip the bandaid off quick and get them all out of the way.

[shank]

T, your sig is too big

[Tned]

T, your sig is too big

Hey, I thought those of us that adopted Hillis were supposed to stick together!! :lol:

[Midnight Blue]

Back when the Mane had sigs, I think there's were 700x100, which is a bit on the small size.

Mania's limit is 750x400

Anything below 800 on the width should be fine, as the vast majority of people run at minimum 800x600 resolutions and most are 1024x600+ or greater, so anything 800 or less in width should prevent side to side scrolling, so the height is the big thing.

The Mane had two options for signature sizes... either

A) 600 x 100 pixels, or
B) 300 x 250 pixels.

Avy limits there are a maximum of 200 x 250 pixels. :)

[SmilinAssasSin27]

i'm a fan of no limit, but understand it should be limited if the memory needed hurts the site.

[Tned]

i'm a fan of no limit, but understand it should be limited if the memory needed hurts the site.

Sigs (having them or size) don't impact the server. Instead, it is about poster experience.

Some don't like having sigs that are too big, because it creates a lot more scrolling.

Also, if the images file size (which we haven't addressed yet) is too big, then it can take a long time to download.

Both of those factors can impact the experience posters have when they are viewing threads, but have little to no impact on server performance, since the images are downloaded directly from where they are hosted (imagehack, etc.) to the person's browser.

[SmilinAssasSin27]

my biggest issue are the avys/sigs that are gifs. My PC is elderly and that stuff kills my wait time.

[Tned]

my biggest issue are the avys/sigs that are gifs. My PC is elderly and that stuff kills my wait time.

Not everyone optimizes their images for the web, and therefore they are often bigger (file size, not physical size) than they need to be and that starts to add up. Your's aren't too bad (70K or so each, but that's 140K+ for both of them), but sometimes people ahve images that are 200K or bigger.

As an example, here is one of your sig images at three different optimized levels. These are just three Jpeg settings, but often you can switch to gif and get better quality, but smaller size.

Jpeg quality setting of 60 and file size of 30K (vs. original 70K)
http://www.broncos07.com/downloads/tj2_60.jpg

Jpeg quality setting of 30 and file size of 19K (vs. original 70K)
http://www.broncos07.com/downloads/tj2_60.jpg


Jpeg quality setting of 15 and file size of 12K (vs. original 70K)
http://www.broncos07.com/downloads/tj2_60.jpg

[Tned]

Here is a site by the way for resizing. Both the dimensions of the image and web optimizing by changing file type or changing quality.

It also allows you to compare what the image will look like at different quality settings.

http://webresizer.com/resizer/

You can also use programs like Adobe Image Ready, Google Picasa and numerous other programs.

If everyone would take a few moments to optimize their images before using them in sigs, then it would speed up BF for everyone that visits.

[BroncoJoe]

The main reason I have sigs turned off didn't really have to do with the previous polls and discussions, but because of some of the sizes! I'd prefer the smallest size, but honestly I'm most likely going to continue to leave them off anyway.

[LordTrychon]

The main reason I have sigs turned off didn't really have to do with the previous polls and discussions, but because of some of the sizes! I'd prefer the smallest size, but honestly I'm most likely going to continue to leave them off anyway.

Way to make your opinion unimportant. :salute:

[BroncoJoe]

Way to make your opinion unimportant. :salute:

LOL - I know. The main reason was size, but I also didn't like looking at a lot of the crap during the election. That was the straw, but primarily size was the reason.

[atwater27]

My unicorn does not wish to be resized.

[shank]

why are the two pics in my sig stacking all of the sudden? they are supposed to be side-by-side :confused:

[frauschieze]

They've always stacked, Shank. You've got an return after the first one. Take it out and it should be fine.

[Midnight Blue]

That, or the two pics could be pasted side by side into a single graphic....

[SmilinAssasSin27]

same w/ mine. On my computer, they've always been sSBS. Now 1 on the other...

[Tned]

why are the two pics in my sig stacking all of the sudden? they are supposed to be side-by-side :confused:


same w/ mine. On my computer, they've always been sSBS. Now 1 on the other...

Ok, that was my bad. When I was working on the sig areas for both incorporating the P&R opt-in and enforcing sig size restrictions, I put a max width of 800 pixels (thinking nobody was over that), and a max height of 850 or so, to make sure nobody's sigs were cut off.

Since your sigs side by side were over 800, they wrapped and switched to stacked.

Sorry about that.

That's what I get for playing with CSS when I don't know what I am doing. :lol:

[frauschieze]

Ok, that was my bad. When I was working on the sig areas for both incorporating the P&R opt-in and enforcing sig size restrictions, I put a max width of 800 pixels (thinking nobody was over that), and a max height of 850 or so, to make sure nobody's sigs were cut off.

Since your sigs side by side were over 800, they wrapped and switched to stacked.

Sorry about that.

That's what I get for playing with CSS when I don't know what I am doing. :lol:

Lesson one:

Don't make live updates. ;)

[shank]

hahaha, i knew it! ;)

(i knew because i remember specifically resizing the two pictures to be the same height and putting them side by side).

[Tned]

Lesson one:

Don't make live updates. ;)

I was a little lazy. This is about the only change I have done directly on the live server. Usually, I make all changes on a backup server and then after fully tested, I reapply them here.

Like you say, playing with the live site isn't smart. :D

[Tned]

hahaha, i knew it! ;)

(i knew because i remember specifically resizing the two pictures to be the same height and putting them side by side).

Yea, you're right. I must have been thinking of Atwater's sigs when I said they had been stacked for a while. :lol:

[rcsodak]

I went with the first option, because frankly, between that and the avy, if you can't show your purpose in life, you need a billboard. :confused:

Seriously though, I have sigs turned OFF, because they take too long to load on broadband. The 'no limit' option would be the WORST possible answer though. I can just see that having no good ending.

[Tned]

We will go with a 750x250 limit. I will add code that will trim anything bigger than that (I will make the auto trim slightly larger to provide a little margin.

In addition, any political sigs should fall within a 750x150 limit. I have opted to stack these limits for some technical reasons.

Meaning, if you opt in to Political sigs, and the person has both a regular and political sig and max dimensions, you might see a total sig in the size range of 750x400.

[topscribe]

We will go with a 750x250 limit. I will add code that will trim anything bigger than that (I will make the auto trim slightly larger to provide a little margin.

In addition, any political sigs should fall within a 750x150 limit. I have opted to stack these limits for some technical reasons.

Meaning, if you opt in to Political sigs, and the person has both a regular and political sig and max dimensions, you might see a total sig in the size range of 750x400.

:confused:

-----

[Tned]

:confused:

-----

I'm not sure I understand the question.

[topscribe]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

I'm not sure I understand the explanation.

So, if a person opts in his sig, then it will show everywhere if it is allowed
everywhere (i.e., "positive" religious), if it exceeds the allowed dimensions but
now stacks to 750x400?

In other words, if the height exceeds 250 and would otherwise get cut off,
opting in would increase the height to 400? Would it then show only in P&R, or
would it now show everywhere because it's allowed everywhere?

-----

[Tned]

I'm not sure I understand the explanation.

So, if a person opts in his sig, then it will show everywhere if it is allowed
everywhere (i.e., "positive" religious), if it exceeds the allowed dimensions but
now stacks to 750x400?

In other words, if the height exceeds 250 and would otherwise get cut off,
opting in would increase the height to 400? Would it then show only in P&R, or
would it now show everywhere because it's allowed everywhere?

-----

Thanks. Much easier to answer a question that contains words.

I think I can explain it better with a sample.

There are two separate size restrictions.

First, the main signature (the one everyone has been using up to this point) is restricted to 750x250.

Second, the secondary political signature has it's own size restriction of 750x150.

If you "opt in" in to view political signatures, then you will see those signatures everywhere. It has nothing to do with specific signatures.

Now, if you have opted in to view political signatures and a person has both a political and normal signature, then it would look something like this:

_____________
http://www.broncos07.com/downloads/750_250.jpg

_____________
http://www.broncos07.com/downloads/750_150.jpg

The first image above representing the normal or primary signature, and the second image representing the political (secondary and opt in) signature.

Therefore if you choose to view the political sigs, and the person has maxed out the size of both the normal and secondary (political) sig, then the total sig size for that person would be roughly 750x400.

[atwater27]

TNED slaughtered my innocent Unicorn. Savage.