part of the argument against image sigs, Amorya, can be seen right in your post. You see your name 3 times within the space of 2 inches. On the left, signed, and image signature. The problem with image sigs, in my mind at least, is that they tend to be redundant for the most part...
but thats IMO. whether or not we keep them will be decided by the poll.
*Was originally meant for the Poll: Image Signatures thread but someone went and locked it just before I could click submit!*
/climbs onto a soapbox
I think the idea of a sig approval committee is workable. Sigs would have to be adherent to certain limitations and rules in order to be used. The size requirement is a definite but what else? Personally, I think forcing sigs to be black&white only is stupid and something that went out with the 80s. Why not just dis-allow certain colors? The kind of colors that would conflict with the AI interface. Remember, sigs shouldn't try to direct your attention to themselves, just serve as a helpful place marker. Also, sigs with a single background color should just be made transparent so it won't conflict with the forum background.
If a sig approval committee is formed it should consist of as few people as possible. Say just 3? And in order to have your sig approved all 3 members must be in agreement, no 2/3s majority on this. Anything else?
/climbs off soapbox
P.S. Another idea is to dump sigs altogether and just go with avatars. As of version 6.1 UBB supports avatars. I know, I run one myself.
<strong>we're actually going to turn them back on, but keep them small (140x35) and non-animated. Also, we'll do something about ones that are hugely loud or obnoxious... we'd like to discourage them, but allow for freedom of expression.</strong><hr></blockquote>
NOOOOOOOOO
even when they are small, a page full of sigs has much more latency, as my browser struggles to contact everyone's different web server just to read a single lousy 10 K gif. Even on broadband, a page full of images from a dozen different servers is going to load TOO damn slow.
Even worse, sometimes these wonderful free webservers are down and it takes even longer for the page to load!
MacNN drives me crazy for this very reason.
"cast off the frivolities of thy youth"
like so many others have said - be creative with your words. If you want to show off your Photoshop skilz, post a link to your portfolio.
I don't know why there is all this bitching... if you don't like image sigs... DON'T use them. I'm all for using graphite, or greyscale sig images... it's unobtrusive....
Comments
but thats IMO. whether or not we keep them will be decided by the poll.
Being Politically Correct is retarded.
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
/climbs onto a soapbox
I think the idea of a sig approval committee is workable. Sigs would have to be adherent to certain limitations and rules in order to be used. The size requirement is a definite but what else? Personally, I think forcing sigs to be black&white only is stupid and something that went out with the 80s. Why not just dis-allow certain colors? The kind of colors that would conflict with the AI interface. Remember, sigs shouldn't try to direct your attention to themselves, just serve as a helpful place marker. Also, sigs with a single background color should just be made transparent so it won't conflict with the forum background.
If a sig approval committee is formed it should consist of as few people as possible. Say just 3? And in order to have your sig approved all 3 members must be in agreement, no 2/3s majority on this. Anything else?
/climbs off soapbox
P.S. Another idea is to dump sigs altogether and just go with avatars. As of version 6.1 UBB supports avatars. I know, I run one myself.
<strong>There's still hope for avatars. <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[Cheers]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
no, no there isn't.
Go away if you can't leave MacMonkey behind.
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
What un-PC threads have been locked?
you're just mad about the signature popular opinion is counter yours...
<strong>What are you talking about?
What un-PC threads have been locked?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In AI past
<strong>perhaps @ the old AI...
you're just mad about the signature popular opinion is counter yours...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually it was about even
Ok
<strong>we're actually going to turn them back on, but keep them small (140x35) and non-animated. Also, we'll do something about ones that are hugely loud or obnoxious... we'd like to discourage them, but allow for freedom of expression.</strong><hr></blockquote>
NOOOOOOOOO
even when they are small, a page full of sigs has much more latency, as my browser struggles to contact everyone's different web server just to read a single lousy 10 K gif. Even on broadband, a page full of images from a dozen different servers is going to load TOO damn slow.
Even worse, sometimes these wonderful free webservers are down and it takes even longer for the page to load!
MacNN drives me crazy for this very reason.
"cast off the frivolities of thy youth"
like so many others have said - be creative with your words. If you want to show off your Photoshop skilz, post a link to your portfolio.
<strong>
no, no there isn't.</strong><hr></blockquote>