or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › Feedback › *** Poll: Image Signatures
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

*** Poll: Image Signatures

post #1 of 84
Thread Starter 
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>
post #2 of 84
No..
Merdeka!
Reply
Merdeka!
Reply
post #3 of 84
No.
post #4 of 84
Yes. Only because sonicblue had such a cool one (that was generated on the fly from his webserver).
post #5 of 84
Yes. As long as they meet the size requirements and don't try to grab your attention sig images are fine.
That's the problem with changing the past. You never get to say "I told you so".
Reply
That's the problem with changing the past. You never get to say "I told you so".
Reply
post #6 of 84
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".
post #7 of 84
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>
post #8 of 84
I have a cable modem so for me I'm ok with them but they do need to stay within the proper size.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #9 of 84
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... )
Ayn Rand... smarter than live people.
Reply
Ayn Rand... smarter than live people.
Reply
post #10 of 84
Definitely No.
- Mojo the Monkey
Reply
- Mojo the Monkey
Reply
post #11 of 84
Thread Starter 
/out of administrator mode

I don't like them.

/back into cracking my virtual whip
post #12 of 84
[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!)
Ayn Rand... smarter than live people.
Reply
Ayn Rand... smarter than live people.
Reply
post #13 of 84
No.

It seems like a visual distraction to the text.
post #14 of 84
I lick 'em

I like 'em too.
post #15 of 84
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.
FREEING ROBSTAHS!!!@@ RUN ROBSTAHS, GO, GO, ROBSTAHS, RUN FOR FREEDOM##@! DOMO-KUN SAVE ROBSTAHS;;
Reply
FREEING ROBSTAHS!!!@@ RUN ROBSTAHS, GO, GO, ROBSTAHS, RUN FOR FREEDOM##@! DOMO-KUN SAVE ROBSTAHS;;
Reply
post #16 of 84
I think as long as they're not too big or distracting then it's fine.
post #17 of 84
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>
Ceci n'est pas une pomme. Magritte
Reply
Ceci n'est pas une pomme. Magritte
Reply
post #18 of 84
Sounds fine to me. Nothing can be worse than the gigantic, half-screen megasigs I have to trudge through on some other boards.
I'm not going anywhere.
Reply
I'm not going anywhere.
Reply
post #19 of 84
No. There's nothing like a bright purple ugly picture to ruin the nice color scheme of the boards.
*Registered March 1, 1999*
Member #14
Reply
*Registered March 1, 1999*
Member #14
Reply
post #20 of 84
Yeah, they're ok. But small is good. Could be just as happy without them too.
post #21 of 84
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.
post #22 of 84
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>
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #23 of 84
Thread Starter 
bump

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

thanks
post #24 of 84
Yes I think we should have them.

This thread makes me want to call the whaaaaaaaaaambulance
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
post #25 of 84
No, no and no.
And furthermore, no.

Text sigs show real creativity.
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.
post #26 of 84
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
post #27 of 84
Maybe they should be passed through a judge like someone said earlier. I think mine goes with the design and fits the size requirements.
post #28 of 84
No.

Keep your fora tidy.

But now you know why the Aqua team limit one's options ...
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #29 of 84
[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
post #30 of 84
Amorya, for the most part people are pretty mature around here.
post #31 of 84
Thread Starter 
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.
post #32 of 84
Thread Starter 
I intend to make the new rules tonight at midnight- the results of this poll by then will determine which way we go.
post #33 of 84
[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*)
post #34 of 84
Thread Starter 
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.
post #35 of 84
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.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #36 of 84
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.
FREEING ROBSTAHS!!!@@ RUN ROBSTAHS, GO, GO, ROBSTAHS, RUN FOR FREEDOM##@! DOMO-KUN SAVE ROBSTAHS;;
Reply
FREEING ROBSTAHS!!!@@ RUN ROBSTAHS, GO, GO, ROBSTAHS, RUN FOR FREEDOM##@! DOMO-KUN SAVE ROBSTAHS;;
Reply
post #37 of 84
Since the forum is fast enough now. I vote yes.
post #38 of 84
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.
post #39 of 84
YES! i usually remember poeple by their sigs..
post #40 of 84
Add a requirement. Make it so they can only be grayscale, no color at all. That would look rather nice in the current forum.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Feedback
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › Feedback › *** Poll: Image Signatures