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.)
<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
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.
<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*)
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.
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.
Comments
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>
guys, keep this at the top. I want to have this decision made tonight.
This thread makes me want to call the whaaaaaaaaaambulance
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.
Amorya
Keep your fora tidy.
But now you know why the Aqua team limit one's options ...
<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
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.
<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*)
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.
That's just the way this board is supposed to be run. An influx of MacNN newfies shouldn't change that.
It's a bad idea.
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.