|
Post by MyTatuo on Sept 6, 2007 13:31:28 GMT -5
I was posting this to a fellow mod, but thought it should be a site-wide discussion...
I am torn on the banner issue: PRO: Love the artwork; annoyed people can turn them off CON: Shows up on EVERY post by member; almost ALL frequent posters have them; increases load times for those without high-speed connections; sometimes large pics don't shrink It would be nice if there was a rollover feature that would let people expand an interesting banner, but that's too advanced for most (if ProBoards would even allow it?) I don't want to stifle anyone's creativity, but it would be nice if those making banners would try and be MORE creative by getting the same images in a 600x100-ish space. That's just being considerate. BW has a valid point that she would hate to miss the cool artwork by turning off all banners, but do we need an entire screenful at the end of every post in a thread? This is an exaggeration, of course, and my joke sig is now just as large as anyone else's, but I normally do try to get my sigs in a shallow space. Jo is especially good at this: It would have been real easy to include the entire pic, but she gets the point across with the suit emblem, the badge, and the suit 'n tie and still keeps the height down. Without picking on any one person (since I probably pick on her too much), I can think of one particular sig that could be almost cut in half if the spaceship came down a little bit Anyway, keep making those sigs, but keep the above in mind. There are no rules here currently about the size of signatures, but I also would hate to have to make one. We have all done a pretty nice job of policing ourselves, and I don't want to start getting PMs with "Hey, So-N-So's sig line is 82 pixels, I thought the limit was 80?!" You get the idea...
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 6, 2007 13:35:15 GMT -5
Personally, I prefer the smaller banners. I like to see the creativity of members too, but I think standardizing them just makes sense overall...especially if they are in someone's signature all the time.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 6, 2007 16:25:43 GMT -5
My issue is that this concern suddenly appeared, hence why I mentioned it to the other mods. Personally, I think it's more the height than width that's been a problem. Most of the banners width wise have been the width of my current one with Katt. That width dimension has been around since Silve (silverhammer) created one of the first ones for "Culpalicious" (in fact, I think she was the first one to create a sig bar). Also, IMHO, sometimes the width we keep our browser windows isn't the same as someone else's, so it's not fair to just limit the width to a small size because someone likes their bar to be small. This is my opinion only: Whatever width we have now for ex. mine and Nicol's sig bars is fine, but the height needs to be a bit shorter, maybe no more than 150-200 pixels (or no taller than the Bill badge 'em or eating dog biscuits avatars). Also, this allows for the artists more space to work a design in but doesn't on a normal basis pop up the horizontal bar. My reasoning is mostly because I've seen on occasion the boards do wild things and make them wider than not, regardless of a photo or sig bar size. I have seen a horizontal sig bar be created with NO pics on a page other than small sig bars, and sometimes I have no clue why a board decides to just make itself wider. Being an artist myself, two and three-dimensional, I just don't want to limit people to very small spaces. (ETA: BTW MyTatuo, I didn't design my sig bar. Only one I've done was HD's Davidson Devotee one, which admittedly could become borderline in violation of height restrictions. )
|
|
|
Post by jopierce on Sept 6, 2007 16:43:13 GMT -5
Well, the sig that I am working on for the SMUT board is a close up of Bill...
...well, part of him...
...and it's way too big...
|
|
|
Post by jopierce on Sept 6, 2007 16:44:39 GMT -5
And MyT, you never answered the question in my sig...
|
|
|
Post by MyTatuo on Sept 6, 2007 16:53:51 GMT -5
Again, don't get me wrong. At the moment there is no size that is not "ok". I was simply stating an opinion that less (height) is desirable, especially when dealing with a pic that will be at the bottom of EVERY post one makes. I do not want to be the one who stifles anyone creativity, or even force them to ask, "Well, excuse me, is this more to your liking?" As mod, I need to weigh the needs/requests of all members, as well as thinking about accessibility for members and guests, specifically page-loading time and ease of viewing. While I (with my high-speed connection and large monitor) can easily view threads, and can easily skip over giant pictures that I recognise as sigs I have seen before, I (as a IRL programmer) also need to think about others who are not so fortunate, including guests who may simply be looking for an actor's latest convention appearance. Again, I wish there were a way to "pop-out" a larger signature, so that those who have seen them in an artist's last 20 posts can skip them if desired, nor do I suggest that all sigs should simple be a clickable link/icon to their latest creation: ...especially since I can't read it any more. Mel just PMed me about the "banner" by Silverhammer that actually fits better with my suggestion (and coincidentally is the basis for my current joke sig): A gun, a badge, and legs that won't quit. Mmm, Culpalicious. Note the height is under 100 pxs, the width (625) is ok even for a 800x600 monitor. Now, if she had two of these side by side, that might create a problem for some. I will let others chime in, since I seem to be the only one with a detailed opinion here at the moment, making this sound as though I am clamping down on self-expression...
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 6, 2007 16:59:54 GMT -5
I liked the width of Silve's, as it's the one that most of these are. I think IMHO, that the max height should be at most 150 pixels or so. If someone could draw a test bar with that height, possibly one at 200, then we'd have a rough idea.
|
|
|
Post by MyTatuo on Sept 6, 2007 17:02:22 GMT -5
And MyT, you never answered the question in my sig... If you mean this one: ...I need to modifiy the text yet again to read "The -Greatest -American -Hero .com Fan Forum. Then it will be prominently featured on the front page of said domain...
|
|
|
Post by jopierce on Sept 6, 2007 17:05:30 GMT -5
S'okay, MyT. The board isn't always about fun and games. As a mod, you gotta do what you gotta do... and that is bring up these issues sometimes.
Now, I am one of the current offenders of too much of a good thing. Of course, if someone would just friggin answer my fraggin question, I'll remove part of that sig, already... *sigh*
I personally have an ancient computer, but my speed is ok. So for me load time is not an issue. My issue, however, with large big arse sigs is that sometimes it makes it difficult to read posts in general. If a sig is too big for my screen, the right hand edge of the post will often get lost on my monitor.... which means I have to slide things over to read. While sometimes that's fine for a single big post, it does affect all the posts on that page, and well, it can get tedious. When it happens on every page because frequent posters are using big sigs, then it gets too much.
I agree with the lovely artwork. I agree with having no real rules. I support creativity fully. I personally would like to go all Art Museum on this board and have nudes in the sigs... but that's another story. I think that those who have mega sigs may want to at least switch their sigs out after a few days. That way we can get the mega artwork, but not have it affect the board for too long.
JMHO.
|
|
|
Post by jopierce on Sept 6, 2007 17:06:52 GMT -5
And MyT, you never answered the question in my sig... If you mean this one: ...I need to modifiy the text yet again to read "The -Greatest -American -Hero .com Fan Forum. Then it will be prominently featured on the front page of said domain... Ok. Thanks...
I can modify it if you want. Give me a little time though. I am busy redesigning a 3 foot tall sig.
|
|
|
Post by MyTatuo on Sept 6, 2007 17:22:37 GMT -5
Ok. Thanks...
I can modify it if you want. Give me a little time though. I am busy redesigning a 3 foot tall sig. LOL. Wow, 3 feet?! Is that standing up or lying dow.. NM, I'll TITTSB. Go ahead and modify it when you get the chance, thanks. I've got plenty to keep me busy...
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 6, 2007 19:54:07 GMT -5
If you mean this one: ...I need to modifiy the text yet again to read "The -Greatest -American -Hero .com Fan Forum. Then it will be prominently featured on the front page of said domain... Ok. Thanks...
I can modify it if you want. Give me a little time though. I am busy redesigning a 3 foot tall sig.Three foot tall... where do you have your computer - GAO Toys? (Just kidding... but I bet it'll look great)
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 7, 2007 9:13:51 GMT -5
Personally, I like the smaller signatures. Just because we are fans doesn't mean we have to have these HUGE signatures that stretch the page and make loading slower. I know I have slow internet service at times, so I become tempted to turn off signatures so I don't have to worry about it. I would hate to see that happen, so I think imposing a maximum would be best...preferably on length and width.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 7, 2007 9:14:06 GMT -5
Well, the sig that I am working on for the SMUT board is a close up of Bill...
...well, part of him...
...and it's way too big...
Must be his nose.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 7, 2007 12:50:22 GMT -5
Personally, I like the smaller signatures. Just because we are fans doesn't mean we have to have these HUGE signatures that stretch the page and make loading slower. I know I have slow internet service at times, so I become tempted to turn off signatures so I don't have to worry about it. I would hate to see that happen, so I think imposing a maximum would be best...preferably on length and width. I think Silve's width worked the best, and no one that I know of was upset with that dimension (either way) when it first came out. Now height is another issue. I also didn't know of anyone complaining that they're pages busted wider or took forever to download because of Silve's sig. Silve's looks to be about 100 pixels high, the max for an avatar, but I'm wondering if possibly 125 or 150 would work as well for a max.
|
|
|
Post by MyTatuo on Sept 7, 2007 13:17:19 GMT -5
Silve's = <100 Jo's & Helane's = 125 Lauren's = 150
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 7, 2007 14:39:05 GMT -5
On the signature aspect, as long as it doesn't stretch most browsers, I am fine with it on width. Height is another issue, but I prefer keeping it small there as well. There is no need to have a huge signature.
I wish we could impose a size on photographs and images too. Some of those pictures we use for captions (and yes, I am guilty of it too) are huge and stretch the page just as bad, if not worse, than some of the signatures we are discussing.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 7, 2007 14:53:38 GMT -5
On the signature aspect, as long as it doesn't stretch most browsers, I am fine with it on width. Height is another issue, but I prefer keeping it small there as well. There is no need to have a huge signature. I wish we could impose a size on photographs and images too. Some of those pictures we use for captions (and yes, I am guilty of it too) are huge and stretch the page just as bad, if not worse, than some of the signatures we are discussing. I think we have a rule that if the photos are big, to do the clicky bit with them if someone wants to see a larger version of it. Most are pretty adherent to that rule. Doesn't always happen, but most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Sept 8, 2007 10:48:29 GMT -5
On the signature aspect, as long as it doesn't stretch most browsers, I am fine with it on width. Height is another issue, but I prefer keeping it small there as well. There is no need to have a huge signature. I wish we could impose a size on photographs and images too. Some of those pictures we use for captions (and yes, I am guilty of it too) are huge and stretch the page just as bad, if not worse, than some of the signatures we are discussing. I think we have a rule that if the photos are big, to do the clicky bit with them if someone wants to see a larger version of it. Most are pretty adherent to that rule. Doesn't always happen, but most of the time. Do we? I just read another thread of MyTatuo's saying that there were no rules here...outside the basic TOS.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Sept 8, 2007 10:57:31 GMT -5
I think we have a rule that if the photos are big, to do the clicky bit with them if someone wants to see a larger version of it. Most are pretty adherent to that rule. Doesn't always happen, but most of the time. Do we? I just read another thread of MyTatuo's saying that there were no rules here...outside the basic TOS. I said think , but well, if it's not a rule, it's a request. Regardless, it's been addressed before in that people complained they were too big and were told to do a clicky icon so it'd keep the pages at what most see as a normal size.
|
|