View Full Version : Signature sizing limit...
CulRidr
05-28-2008, 04:26 PM
I have no problem with the height limit on a signature, but is there any way we could up the limit on the width? The present limit is almost a regular picture size, as opposed to the more conventional "panoramic" look...
That's just my proposal, but please feel free to put me in my place and tell me it will be too big a load on the servers... :D
what's the current limit for width?
... I'm sure it's because of the people having the older monitors with lower resolutions...
I know there aren't many of those left, but we still have to keep em in mind.
We have enough of up/down scrolling to do, so left/right would be a bit too much.
So, considering the name/title/avatar table size, the width of the sig pic should not exceed 450/500px?
kansei
05-28-2008, 04:38 PM
the width limit is 600 pixels
this is the max size of a sig pic:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/2487643517_c5482f4e66_o.jpg
there's actually two pic size limits though (annoying I know). One is a limit on the size of images externally linked, and the other is a limit on the size of images hosted on this site for sig pic use.
I try to make sure they are the same but.. they might not be. The one that is displayed when editing your sig is the latter of the two limits.
CulRidr
05-28-2008, 04:40 PM
200*600...I wouldn't mind shorter but wider...
The one I want to put in is 150*760...
sumo_bob
05-28-2008, 04:41 PM
I think it's more to make thread more readable. If you have 10 posts all with 400-600px high sigs, it makes for a lot of extra scrolling.
CulRidr
05-28-2008, 04:43 PM
I think it's more to make thread more readable. If you have 10 posts all with 400-600px high sigs, it makes for a lot of extra scrolling.
Again, I have no problems with the height, it's the width that should have no REAL limit... and you can still disable sigs all together, or at least check the option to only see them once per page.
that's why there is an option to only show the sig once per page. :)
and 600px sounds VERY reasonable!!
downsize that 760. You can do that w/o losing quality no prob.
kansei
05-28-2008, 04:47 PM
200*600...I wouldn't mind shorter but wider...
The one I want to put in is 150*760...
that's a really wide pic.. link?
The most common complain I get about the sig pic size limit is that it's way wider than tall and not a lot of photos can crop to that size well. To that I say, just resize your sig so that it is within that limit, you don't have to use the max available size. Kinda like my 494x200 sig pic right now. Sure I could have done a 600x200 crop but I couldn't get one that looked right. In your case that would mean a 600x118 image
CulRidr
05-28-2008, 04:48 PM
I suppose I could make it XXX*600. To give you an idea, here's the sig I want to put in:
Edit: Gah...will have to do it from home since I don't have access to the photobucket tool from work...
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff97/CulRidr/Signature.jpg
kansei
05-28-2008, 04:49 PM
Again, I have no problems with the height, it's the width that should have no REAL limit... and you can still disable sigs all together, or at least check the option to only see them once per page.
Yeah but I don't want this to be like toprotege where there are sigs that are over 1000 pixels wide AND tall (for those who haven't been on there I'm not kidding), and as a result most people have sigs turned off entirely. The default setting is that sigs are on, but only shown on the first post by each user on each page. A 760 width sig would probably put us into "not 1024x768 viewable without horizontal scrolling" category...
I'll play around and see for myself
Chris,
make your sig 800 wide and see if anyone says anything :D
kansei
05-28-2008, 04:51 PM
yeah I'm testing at 1024 and that's too wide, but not by much. It doesn't cause horizontal scrolling but if your avatar was the max size and you had a sig that size, it would. It squashes your postbit down a decent bit. I think 700px would work fine though. Mayyyybe 725.
This is assuming everyone at 1024x768 uses their browser maximized, which I think is a safe assumption given the limited screen real estate at that res.
CulRidr
05-28-2008, 04:52 PM
Yeah but I don't want this to be like toprotege where there are sigs that are over 1000 pixels wide AND tall (for those who haven't been on there I'm not kidding), and as a result most people have sigs turned off entirely. The default setting is that sigs are on, but only shown on the first post by each user on each page. A 760 width sig would probably put us into "not 1024x768 viewable without horizontal scrolling" category...
I'll play around and see for myself
Ya the TOprotege ones are just wrong...and I guess if it doesn't fit in a 1024*768 screen I could understand...I'll change the size at home :)
hehe.
yea, once you are in 1280x1024 range and up, you don't even need to have it maxed out...
Most of my computers are over 1400w already, and have been that way for awhile now.
kansei
05-28-2008, 04:55 PM
exactly, but to make a site that requires more than 1024 width would be a bit much. I run 1920x1200 and like to be able to multitask .. if I had to make my browser window a lot bigger it would get tough
my 10" laptop is only 1024 though :(
^^ that's poop
but that's the sacrifice of an ultraportable.
kansei
05-28-2008, 05:00 PM
it's also why I use a 14" laptop as my primary.. 1400x1050.
I'd rather carry my 3.2 pound 10" than my 4.5 pound 14" when I'm cycling.
but anyway here is that sig pic resized to 700, 600, and 600 for testing purposes (I'll delete when I'm done testing):
kansei
05-28-2008, 05:01 PM
700
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2081/2531415621_b90c86b55c_o.jpg
kansei
05-28-2008, 05:01 PM
650
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2193/2532230484_d9b0c961ed_o.jpg
kansei
05-28-2008, 05:01 PM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2105/2531415749_a2f483a21b_o.jpg
DemonIAm
05-28-2008, 05:02 PM
I think the 700 looks fine. See how it looks with a max size avatar
My boss keeps changing the resolution to 1024 * 768, because "if you chage it, everything gets too small"
kansei
05-28-2008, 05:03 PM
700 works fine @ 1024x768.. with my size avatar
I'll continue testing in a few
I'd vote for 650, but 700 is cool too. Definitely not bigger though.
CulRidr
05-28-2008, 06:36 PM
I can live with 650 :)
kansei
05-28-2008, 07:07 PM
k it's set to 650 now give it a try.
CulRidr
05-28-2008, 07:31 PM
Done! :)
I'd vote for 650, but 700 is cool too. Definitely not bigger though.
+1 but its done. i think 650 looks good.
CrashKelly
06-12-2008, 07:14 PM
Why is that I am allowed to post a large pic as my sig...but am so limited with my signature text? I went to edit it and I cant because I can only have 200 characters and 3 lines...my current "ingredient list" is no where near the size of the allowable pics size, but I cannot change it because it is "too large" already by the new standards...I only wanted to list a couple extra things and I spent like 20 minutes cutting it down because it said I needed to be under 400 characters...then when I did that it wouldnt let me save the sig because it then said I had to be less than 200! When I got to that point I realized I barely even had a sentence worth of words
The only reason it is as large as it is now is because I had it that way before the new restrictions went up. I think its kind of bogus you can put a pic up that is twice the size of my sig, but I cant add a few things on to my current one. I sized it pretty small so I wouldnt take up too much space and I am not one of those damn newbs that has a newspaper sized sig that takes up the whole screen
kansei
06-12-2008, 08:14 PM
No need to be harsh about it. Politely ask and things will get fixed pretty much immediately. I might get to this tonight..
CrashKelly
06-13-2008, 11:00 AM
No need to be harsh about it. Politely ask and things will get fixed pretty much immediately. I might get to this tonight..
Sorry fella, I actually did not mean to come off as being harsh...Just confused and frustrated really. I wanted to change it to follow the rules then when I got down to 400 characters the rules changed again to 200...so it just felt like I wasted a bunch of time trying to condense things. No biggie
kansei
06-13-2008, 11:14 AM
err didn't get to it last night. I didn't change any rules at all so I dunno what's up with that. I was pretty sure when we moved to the "supporting members" model we just opened up more stuff for supporting members, I didn't think anything was locked down for non-supporting...
pdhaudio83
06-13-2008, 11:22 AM
Right, supporting members simply get more space/stuff... all members STILL get basic stuff.
kansei
06-13-2008, 11:23 AM
But 200 characters for sig text? when it was 400ish?
CrashKelly
06-13-2008, 12:09 PM
But 200 characters for sig text? when it was 400ish?
i dunno what's up with that...when I currently try to change my sig it says that it has to be less than 400 characters and three lines...then when I get below 400 it says it has to be less than 200
kansei
06-13-2008, 12:11 PM
lol I need to play around with that and see what's up.
pdhaudio83
06-13-2008, 12:13 PM
something is obviously happening when a pic and sig text is used. maybe i had set the limits low, but they haven't been changed since.
CrashKelly
06-13-2008, 12:42 PM
something is obviously happening when a pic and sig text is used. maybe i had set the limits low, but they haven't been changed since.
well my pic was deleted awhile back...so now it is just the text plus the sig pic BBcode that got partially erased...
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.