*** Poll: Image Signatures

[Jonathan]

Yes or No?

Should they be allowed?

If yes, they will be limited in size to 140x35, <10k, no animation.


Let's hear what y'all think.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Jonathan ]</p>

[sapi]

No..

[Logan Cale]

No.

[RubberDucky]

Yes. Only because sonicblue had such a cool one (that was generated on the fly from his webserver).

[Trekkie]

Yes. As long as they meet the size requirements and don't try to grab your attention sig images are fine.

[gordy]

I don't think it would be a decent Mac board without the option for some user creativity. Furthermore, I have never had a problem loading forum full of thumbnail images. I think some are pretty neat.

There's one here now that uses anime in an animated GIF. That's sweet. If they can do all that in under 10K I say "more power to them".

[Logan Cale]

Bright and animated signatures distract attention from the posts. I say if you approve images sigs, they should have to pass a committee before they can be used. :)

But I still say no images. Slows it down for dialup users.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: MacAgent ]</p>

[spaceman_spiff]

I have a cable modem so for me I'm ok with them but they do need to stay within the proper size.

[elppa cam]

I have a contract with Dr. Pepper to use their logo as a sig. Is that okay? ;)

My vote... I like them... (now if only I knew how to use them... :( )

[Mojo @ work]

Definitely No.

[Jonathan]

/out of administrator mode

I don't like them.

/back into cracking my virtual whip

[elppa cam]

[quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:
<strong>/out of administrator mode

I don't like them.

/back into cracking my virtual whip</strong><hr></blockquote>

What? Your opinion counts???


(Be a Pepper, Drink Dr. Pepper!) :D

[corvette]

No.

It seems like a visual distraction to the text.

[IceEnclosure]

I lick 'em

I like 'em too.

[Solishu]

Most definitely not.

All it will take is for someone to make an absolutely hideous one and in the whole look of the board is ruined. You know that trying to censor individual sig picts is going to be a headache and a half.

Express yourself in the text box, don't try to bring more attention to yourself with a gaudy rendering of your name.

[EmAn]

I think as long as they're not too big or distracting then it's fine.

[Retrograde]

I say no.

I like creativity but that can be found in people's writing. Also AI always had plenty of posts that were dedicated to mockups and other art work.

edit: besides, it adds a further visual distinction to the MacNN boards.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Retrograde ]</p>

[Daver]

Sounds fine to me. Nothing can be worse than the gigantic, half-screen megasigs I have to trudge through on some other boards.

[macaddict]

No. There's nothing like a bright purple ugly picture to ruin the nice color scheme of the boards.

[Digital Fruitcake]

Yeah, they're ok. But small is good. Could be just as happy without them too.

[jutus]

No.

And I'm not a huge fan of sigs and post counts either. I wouldn't mind seeing members reduced to their words alone.

Back to the question: No, I don't like dem pretty pictures.

[groverat]

Definitely not.

There is no need to re-iterate your handle in some Photoshop filter orgy. It's posted in plain letters to the left of your post.

If you have a cute message you like to share at the end of all your posts, put it in text.

This is the way AI has been run. Let the other Mac boards have big obnoxious signatures.

Be creative with your words.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>

[Jonathan]

bump

guys, keep this at the top. I want to have this decision made tonight.

:) thanks

[Sinewave]

Yes I think we should have them.

This thread makes me want to call the whaaaaaaaaaambulance

[kaboom]

No, no and no.
And furthermore, no.

Text sigs show real creativity. :p
Plus, pic sigs on the current color scheme are just ugly.
It works ok on a white background like MacNN but not here, and I'm not willing to sacrifice the board color scheme just to get pic sigs.

The previous statements are my opinion and are therefore correct.

[Amorya]

I say yes. Have similar requirements to MacNN. It makes it a lot easier to tell people apart (I tend to learn people by signature, as it provides some unique method of knowing who you're talking to.)

Amorya

[Synotic]

Maybe they should be passed through a judge like someone said earlier. I think mine goes with the design and fits the size requirements.

[Harald]

No.

Keep your fora tidy.

But now you know why the Aqua team limit one's options ...

[Amorya]

[quote]Originally posted by Synotic:
<strong>Maybe they should be passed through a judge like someone said earlier. I think mine goes with the design and fits the size requirements.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How mature are people generally on this board? (I'm a newbie). 'Cos you'd have arguments... If the community could handle that, I'm in, and I'll happily change my sig if it falls out of requirements. Although I'd MUCH rather be allowed an image :)

Amorya

[EmAn]

Amorya, for the most part people are pretty mature around here.

[Jonathan]

this board for approving them is good...

if we do decide to allow them, that may be the ticket. Some of the current crop are a lot gaudier than others, and they do clutter the forums a bit. Text signatures are, IMO, a better option .. but it's totally up to you guys.
:)

[Jonathan]

I intend to make the new rules tonight at midnight- the results of this poll by then will determine which way we go.

[Amorya]

[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>Amorya, for the most part people are pretty mature around here.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's good. A committee might work then. Maybe you could have a preference in your personal options, to say "show images in sigs", so if you don't want them, you can turn them off, and the people who want to see them can? Maybe we could all add alt text too, for the people with it turned off?

Amorya

(I'll give up arguing now... it's not life-or-death important to me *g*)

[Brad]

Yes.

I have to agree with Amorya on the point that graphical signatures can allow you to easily distinguish one person's post from another. Besides, isn't the Mac known as a great "graphic arts" platform? Although I strongly believe there should be size restrictions, we should certainly be able to express our personality and creativity in a little sig like the few you've seen in this thread.
[quote]Bright and animated signatures distract attention from the posts. I say if you approve images sigs, they should have to pass a committee before they can be used.<hr></blockquote>I'll change two words: Bright and animated GUIs distract attention from the content. I'll let you figure out what I mean by that. ;)

[groverat]

The fact that AI has always disallowed graphic sigs has to count for at least 20 votes.

That's just the way this board is supposed to be run. An influx of MacNN newfies shouldn't change that.

[Solishu]

I honestly think that that committee deal is just a disaster waiting to happen. Most people here are too nice to turn down a picture just because it's gaudy or distracting, and therefore it'll just be a piece of toothless beurocracy. Or else they'll run into one that they don't like and if they reject it the person who wants to use it will point at an equally ugly one that got passed and throw a shit fit at the Nazi picture censoring board.

It's a bad idea.

[FIAT]

Since the forum is fast enough now. I vote yes.

[KD5MDK]

I don't like them. They're distracting, take time to load, and just mess up the visuals of the board.

I agree about the committee not going to work out either.

If you really want to show off something you made, have a thread for creative expressions.

and I learn people by their login name and posting style.

[dvd]

YES! i usually remember poeple by their sigs..

[RubberDucky]

Add a requirement. Make it so they can only be grayscale, no color at all. That would look rather nice in the current forum.

[alphamatrix]

I'm a 56k (48k) user and I say YES, because I have one and because if you have a decent browser the image will get cached.

[Amorph]

I'm inclined against them for reasons that have been summarized here (visual clutter, speed - UBB's HTML is already bad enough) and also because, unlike with inlined images, there's no way to edit them in case someone decides to sign off with a 10 minute capture of the desktop on their Cinema Display. :eek:

[Nebrie]

No

[Mac Guru]

Ahhh the AI Purists come out... C'Mon guys... do like MacNN does and put strict rules on graphic sigs...

FORCING people to a certain form of sig is dumb. If you can't decipher a post from a sig then what's the point?

[groverat]

Mac Guru, this isn't MacNN's forums.

AI purists are the only hope this board has against becoming a grey-colored MacNN forum extension.

[Jonathan]

(out of mod mode)

BRAVO GROVERAT!

(back to mod mode)

[Mediaman]

I say yes to image sigs
My sig helps me to quickly 'scan down' to where I last posted, I also use them to quickly scan for useful posts, Sinewave usually posts good info, and his sig allows me to zip down the forum,using the scroll wheel on my mouse, and read his post . Without the images I'd just have to hunt things down. (the edges on mine need tidying maybe the higher png would help?)

[Sinewave]

Yeah lets make sure we make this forum as boring and dull as possible.

[Mac Guru]

Didn't say I WANTED it to be MacNN... NN is full of pretentious jerks... I started out here and I love it here... I just think it would be great if we could EXPRESS ourselves however we want... some use words... others use imagery. Deal with it.

Mac Guru

[groverat]

Boring and dull if you don't have an attention span, I suppose.

Do you still buy books with pictures in them?

[groverat]

[quote]some use words... others use imagery. Deal with it.<hr></blockquote>

The entire point of a message board is words. This is not an Image Forum.

Honestly, you are making my case for me.

[Jonathan]

what if the size of them were limited to a maximum of 120x30, and strictly enforced? I think that a lot of the distraction comes from the size...

just an idea.

[Nebrie]

[quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:
<strong>what if the size of them were limited to a maximum of 120x30, and strictly enforced? I think that a lot of the distraction comes from the size...

just an idea.</strong><hr></blockquote>

ya it does, though pics such as Immortal K-Mart's are disturbing as well...

[Jonathan]

does immortal k-mart post here?
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[Are you kidding?]" />

this is NOT macnn.

please folks... really. AI may be owned by MacNN, but we are totally seperate and (mostly) independent.

[groverat]

It's not entirely the size, Jon, it's usually the color and design.

You have bright and busy signatures and it just breaks up the text and flow of a thread. I might be a freak of nature but I like to look at the posts (you know, the actual words).

When you open the gate for small, unobtrusive ones you get whiners who want theirs a little bigger or more colorful. Then a little more. The best thing to do is make people's posts speak for them then the wheat gets separated from the chaff and the board is better for it anyway.

Maybe they would be useful if they were the only means of identification, but our names are already besides our posts. It's visual clutter, which kind of goes against the whole sleek design of the boards.

Should I be allowed to show my creativity by posting a super-cool Europe - "The Final Countdown" MIDI after my posts?

[gordy]

Being an AI purist (I guess [1999]), I was probably the first poster with a graphic signature here. It was 4K, B/W and cool. Actually, it was under my name in the pane to the left of my post. It did get out of hand once users figured out how to do it, but that is easily remedied with file size limits.

[Solishu]

More than anything, to me, the distraction is the color. Right now we have a nice, sleek, neutral color scheme, and bright squares of color just totally throw it off.

All the reasons that have been given here in defense of these things are total bs. "helps me find my post faster..." "Helps me find other people's posts faster." "Self expression." blah blah blah.... It's not worth turning this place into Pic-Pie just to shave off a half second of your surfing time. I'm all for self expression. Hell, I'll start a thread for people to show off their best stuff. But a little blob of color after each post is an unnecessary eyesore.

[kaboom]

And this whole "it helps me find people faster" crap...how about trying the "Find" command? It's a computer, it can do things like that. Oh, and don't forget those people who like to change their sigs 3 or 4 times a week. *cough* iceEnclosure *cough*

Don't get me wrong, some sigs are really nice but they just aren't the AI style. And really, that's why we're here. To me, if you get sigs, then it's just MacNN jr.
If you want to flaunt your photoshop skillz, make a thread, don't force us to look at your stuff.

Oooooh, look, new Graemlins! <img src="graemlins/biggthumpup.gif" border="0" alt="[Thumbs Up]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[Are you kidding?]" /> <img src="graemlins/news.gif" border="0" alt="[Announcement]" />

[Solishu]

[quote]When you open the gate for small, unobtrusive ones you get whiners who want theirs a little bigger or more colorful. Then a little more. The best thing to do is make people's posts speak for them then the wheat gets separated from the chaff and the board is better for it anyway.<hr></blockquote>I'm just quoting this because it's so true it bears repeating. Gordy's little bar code thing (I hope my memory is correct) below his name in the olden days was kinda cool. It took less time to load than most posts do, and it was totally unobtrusive. But I thank God that other people didn't figure out how to do it, or we would have had frickin chaos here...

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:
<strong>what if the size of them were limited to a maximum of 120x30, and strictly enforced? I think that a lot of the distraction comes from the size...

just an idea.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I would go along with that.

[JBytes]

Certainement!

JBytes

[Sinewave]

lets not forget once the images are in the cache you don't have to download them over and over again.

Some of us are willing to compromise.
Some just want it their way and too bad if others want it a different way.

[Mac Guru]

I see no where on this forum that it is required to use nothing but words to get your message across... if so we should also ban users who instigate such horrific acts as "Show us your desktop pic" threads... Really man... it's a Forum... for words AND/OR images...

I'm not about to "Type" you a description of my desktop. :rolleyes:

I would be all for greyscale only sig images if COLOR hurts your eyes or detracts from the UI of the board, or makes your children into tree huggers or whatever your reason... it'd take me 5 seconds to desaturate my sig...

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Mac Guru ]</p>

[B.I.L]

I think if they are allowed they should be grayscale and very small (25x100 or so). Little tags do make it easier to remember and notice people, but some stick out way too much, especially for the look of this board.

In the first page of this thread, look at Sinewave versus Synotic.

[kaboom]

It's not an issue of download time. We can all agree that sigs aren't that big and don't really add too much time to download. They just don't look right with AI's color scheme. Heck, the smilies are out of place enough without big ugly blocks.
And while I'm on the subject, those folders have got to go.

[Solishu]

You're missing the point Guru. Pictures definitely have their place in this forum. You can get a whole lot of communication done with a picture. However, a jazzed up image of your name doesn't really communicate anything, does it? It's just a way of showing the world how good you are with Photoshop, which has its place, but it is not at the end of each and every post.

[Logan Cale]

[quote]Originally posted by Mac Guru:
<strong>I see no where on this forum that it is required to use nothing but words to get your message across... if so we should also ban users who instigate such horrific acts as "Show us your desktop pic" threads... Really man... it's a Forum... for words AND/OR images...

I'm not about to "Type" you a description of my desktop. :rolleyes: </strong><hr></blockquote>

That's a thread, you can ignore it. It's logical that there would be lots of images in it. With image sigs, you can't ignore them.

Hey, I have an idea. There should be an option to ignore images in signatures if you want in the profile or whatever. <img src="graemlins/biggthumpup.gif" border="0" alt="[Thumbs Up]" />

[kaboom]

ooooh, ignore image sigs.
I like.

[Sinewave]

I can't believe we actually have sig nazis in AI.. :rolleyes:

[Strider]

I say let them go as long as they are at a certain size. And maybe just not animated. But, yah let them stay.

Strider

[kaboom]

Oh no, I've just been called a 'nazi'. I'd better change my opinon right now. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[Are you kidding?]" />

Hey groverat, take care of my light work, would you?

[kaboom]

oooooh, sinewave is quick with his super 1337 photoshop skillz.
Thanx for proving my point.

[Brad]

Good thing we're not at MacNN. Any thread with a mention of nazis gets ::LOCKED::.

Nice sig Sinewave. <img src="graemlins/biggthumpup.gif" border="0" alt="[Thumbs Up]" />

[Jonathan]

very classy sinewave. not helping your point, either.

[Strider]

I say let them go as long as they are at a certain size. And maybe just not animated. But, yah let them stay.

Strider

[nonhuman]

I think they should be allowed. But what about 140x40 instead of 140x35, that way we can use the same images that we do in our MacNN sigs (something I'm sure plenty of people will appreciate).

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by kaboom:
<strong>Oh no, I've just been called a 'nazi'. I'd better change my opinon right now. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[Are you kidding?]" />

Hey groverat, take care of my light work, would you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a joke.. and grover knows better ;)

[Sinewave]

Sorry I didn't know this forum was filled with overly emotional Politically correct nazis either. ;)

[jutus]

Small, tasteful (subjective, I know) images are fine for punctuating a post that is a statement.

Images are one more way to express individuality.

No matter how small they are, however, images do tend to break up dialogue and conversations in the flow of text.

Also, I don't think individuality has *ever* been a problem on these boards.

So, as previously stated, I'm with groverat on this one. Sigs alone are more than enough. No images please.

[kaboom]

[quote]It's a joke.. and grover knows better<hr></blockquote>
Good, I'm glad you're not really like that. I wasn't sure how to take it. We cool? We cool.
As for grover...have you ever seen that guy? He's like 7' 12" and 650lbs!!!! :eek: :p

[MajorMatt]

I say yes for image signatures.

[FIAT]

105x25, non-animated, B&W or max. any 2 or 3 colors. I'm in.

Alessandro <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[Cheers]" />

[i am monkey]

yes... anybody need some cheese with their WINE?

<img src="graemlins/nono.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[Jonathan]

image sigs are now *off*

Pursuant to the public opinion being anti-sigs, and the juvenile (at best) behavior of the proponents of image signatures, i am turning them OFF.

If you really like your signature image, you can manually insert it into your posts like any other image.

Thanks for your understanding.