Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  No images.

60 (15.3%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  No images.

100 (25.5%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  No images.

19 (4.8%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  No images.

15 (3.8%)

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  Cap image height at ~60 pixels.

13 (3.3%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~60 pixels.

67 (17.1%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~60 pixels.

9 (2.3%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  Cap image height at ~60 pixels.

3 (0.8%)

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  Cap image height at ~100 pixels.

3 (0.8%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~100 pixels.

49 (12.5%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~100 pixels.

18 (4.6%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  Cap image height at ~100 pixels.

3 (0.8%)

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  Cap image height at ~150 pixels.

0 (0%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~150 pixels.

7 (1.8%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~150 pixels.

4 (1%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  Cap image height at ~150 pixels.

8 (2%)

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  Images as big as the sky.

1 (0.3%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  Images as big as the sky.

0 (0%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  Images as big as the sky.

0 (0%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  Images as big as the sky.

13 (3.3%)

Total Members Voted: 392

[Mikademus]

People have the option to disable signatures. I guess there's some hidden problem that I'm missing.

2 off the top of my head: 1: Turning off signatures is all or nothing. If sig image are allowed, you either have a choice of text and image signatures or nothing at all. Not too good for the many people who like text signatures. 2: Allowing sig images may change the tone of the forum. Changing how you view the forums has no effect whatsoever on the behaviour of others on the forum.

Then I got the solution for you. Use Firefox or Opera. For FF there's a plugin that allows you to turn off images. This is a default feature under Opera. If you're still using IE, do yourself a favour and stop, or you're not worth listening to in browsing-related questions.

[Slartibartfast]

This post has been brought to you by "Signature Vision".
Signature Vision, because Signatures are AWESOME.

Image sigs are pointless and retarded, but we can turn them off completely from the profile settings, so I don't see any problem

Nope, we can't.

4) I enjoy my freedoms and choices.  Dwarf Fortress is a really open game.  You can do an incredible amount of stuff, and you're hardly bounded by rules or the like.  I shouldn't have to be without a signature and avatar simply because someone's restricted by bandwidth issues, or because they're annoying to them.

You have no freedoms, forums are dictatorships by nature. You do as the overlord commands. (or quit, if you feel like using that choice)
More to the point, what makes you think you wanting to post images in your signatures makes you more important than someone that doesn't want to see images in signatures? Why should he be annoyed instead of you?

You can cache your images.  And then you'll only have to load the image the first time you see it.  Besides, unless the person is uploading BMPs(which I'd bet is disallowed), the pictures will be very small in byte-size, especially if also limited to a certain height.  Compression is amazing these days, and usually a JPG about 200 pixels high by 400 wide is going to be ~70 kb...  With a 56k modem, that's probably about 2 extra seconds.  It'd be disastrous to lose that much time of my life.  I could have spent it sneezing, damnit!

1) 70kb is 10 seconds on 56k, not 2. (And that's assuming you are downloading at full speed)
2) Image caching won't help you on the first time browsing the forums, when it takes you 3 minutes just to a load a single page.
3) Image caching isn't always available or viable.
4) What if I'm browsing on my cellphone? (They have even slower bandwidthes and no HD room to cache images)

Then I got the solution for you. Use Firefox or Opera. For FF there's a plugin that allows you to turn off images. This is a default feature under Opera. If you're still using IE, do yourself a favour and stop, or you're not worth listening to in browsing-related questions.

And if I do want to see avatars?

People would rather not just click a link to a post full of random pictures elseware in the forum.  A signature doesnt have to be ALL text.

True for a lot of people (not all), though it might have something to do with them not wanting to see those images in the first place 

1. Wrong, the admins/moderators can specify guidlines on signature image content, even to that extent.

But enforcing those guidelines is a hassle. Especially if you just want to program some DF.

1. Not everyone is skilled at ASCII.  Do you want alot of horrible ASCII signatures everywere?
2. If your afraid of buffalos jumping into pudding, you need professional help

1) Then vote against lines of text in the signature?
2) I'm sure he appreciates that personal attack against him.

Its only an attention/time waster if you give it the attention/time.

You don't have a choice in the matter. Control of the focus of your eyes is partly subconscious, and completely uncontrollable in cases of animated or high-contrast images.

While the people who are bothered with "visual noise" can just suck up and deal with it.

People who want images in their signatures can just suck up and deal with it. 

By the way, that image is only 60x200 pixels big.

[Derakon]

Then I got the solution for you. Use Firefox or Opera. For FF there's a plugin that allows you to turn off images. This is a default feature under Opera. If you're still using IE, do yourself a favour and stop, or you're not worth listening to in browsing-related questions.

This is not a reasonable solution. There are many images on the forum that serve important uses - they're buttons, or they tell you that a thread has new posts, or you want to use avatars. Turning off all images entirely isn't useful.

[Elvenshae]

For those of you who want to limit .sigs to 1 or 2 lines and no pictures ...

...

Why don't you just turn them off?

[Ratbert_CP]

Then I got the solution for you. Use Firefox or Opera. For FF there's a plugin that allows you to turn off images. This is a default feature under Opera. If you're still using IE, do yourself a favour and stop, or you're not worth listening to in browsing-related questions.

This is not a reasonable solution. There are many images on the forum that serve important uses - they're buttons, or they tell you that a thread has new posts, or you want to use avatars. Turning off all images entirely isn't useful.

Without supporting the browser-hate-mongering of Mikademus, I'd like to add that if an image is required for something like buttons or notifications, the designer should be taken out back, beaten with O'Reilly books on XHTML and CSS, and then forced to use Lynx for all initial page design.  You'd be surprised what you can do with an unordered list and well-thought out CSS...  (see css Zen Garden for mind-boggling examples)

Just my little rant on developing/designing accessible and XHTML-compliant web content...

Oh, and jQuery rocks!

[Janus]

OK, important message: you will be in fact able to disable within your profile the display of images with signatures. So there's really no point in arguing any further. I'll say it again: anybody who wants to see signatures but doesn't want to see any images whatsoever within them will have the option of having them automatically stripped out.

I've just made a mod which adds that functionality. You're welcome. Now please chill out, everybody.

[qwertyuiopas]

Thank you, although I personally won't be using it, but it should calm the masses on this thread.

[Derakon]

Awesome. Thanks, Janus.

There's still the matter of how large the text section of the sig should be...

[Slartibartfast]

Thank you, although I personally won't be using it, but it should calm the masses on this thread.

Maybe now they'll be upset about being referred to as "masses"?
Though there is still the very minor issue of "not wanting something to go on without me noticing" which is:
1) I want to see signatures to their completeness (For example, because the image and text are related, or because someone discusses them in the actual thread or because I just don't want something going on without me knowing about it)
2) I do not want to see images in signatures.
Conclusion: Even though you can disable images in signature you might want to prevent images in signatures in order so that you won't "miss out" if someone does have an image in his signature.
(Yes, I realize this is nit-picky, which is why I said it is. Though this still is an existing issue )

[Janus]

(Yes, I realize this is nit-picky, which is why I said it is. Though this still is an existing issue )

People will always find something to whine about.

[qwertyuiopas]

A solution to that would be, if anyone were to put the time and effort into it, a <image hidden> addition and a <show image> button.

[Janus]

A solution to that would be, if anyone were to put the time and effort into it, a <image hidden> addition and a <show image> button.

Don't look at me. With the tiny amount of usefulness that would provide, it's nowhere close to being worth it.

[qwertyuiopas]

I don't think it would be quite worth it either, it just would please those few who don't and do want to enable signature images at the same time.

[slMagnvox]

This thread is about casting a vote.  Thus these arguements should be encouraged.  Supporters of sig images need to be pleading their case as well.

And saying oh, you can turn them off is a kind of hollow arguement.  We all like these boards alot and want them to be our favorite way by default.  The vote count stands at 115 for no images vs 136 for images of any kind.  I voted against images because I do find them distracting and a waste of space, but I probably wouldn't turn them off because I'd feel like I was missing out on something, hah, something admittedly annoyinh, but missing out none-the-less.

[Janus]

So let me get this straight... People who want to have mild signature images should be prevented from being able to have them, so that you then don't have to miss out on seeing the signature images which you didn't want to see in the first place?