Sig sizes, a grumble

[Sablesword]

I want to throw in a grumble about the signature size rules not being enforced. The rules as given here state:

Member signatures are to be kept at a reasonable size. Please do not include more than 5 lines of text or use fonts larger than size 3. Members using images in signatures are to be considerate to all members by keeping image dimensions no larger than 300x100 pixels and 35Kb in size.​

These are good rules. A not-too-big sig is useful: It identifies the user, and may provide links to more of the user's stuff (or at least the stuff that the user finds most interesting or important). My own sig, for example, has a 248x72 pixel graphic that comes in at a lean 4Kb, plus two lines of text of normal size.

However, I keep seeing sigs here that have huge graphics, especially in the art sections. I think it's time for a Gentle Reminder, to point out again what the sig-size rules are, to tell people that "smaller is smarter" and "less is more" when it comes to sig sizes, and to give people a chance to bring their sigs into line wrt to the rules.

Or, if a significant number of other posters here on TT think that the bigger sigs are desireable and appropriate, then we need a debate, followed by a new set of sig size rules that matches what the moderators will actually allow in practice.

 

[the_jimmy_james]

Nobody else seems to have an issue with it.

Doesn't seem much need to debate or discuss it. In a day and age of 1920x1080px displays and 50Mb hookups, I honestly can't see forum siggies being that big of a deal.

Whether or not TT's server supports IP6 is a much bigger question, honestly.

 

[Ishaanshah]

Rule is rule, my friend.

 

[jts963]

Nobody else seems to have an issue with it.

Speak for yourself. Or is this just you trying to get a pass for your gf's illegal sig? :huh

 

[Sablesword]

Nobody else seems to have an issue with it.

Just because others haven't commented doesn't mean that they don't have an issue with it. Someone has to be the first to comment.

And it's not about people having slow connections or small displays. It's about courtesy, and about sigs that aren't all out of proportion to the size of the post. To me, an oversized sig says "Hi! I'm a jerkass who doesn't have anything useful to say! But lookat my BIG COOL SIG!!!"

It's about people who actually care enough about Tickle Theater to check and make sure that their sigs comply with the rules. When big sigs are allowed to pass, it makes those people feel like chumps. And I, for one, don't like feeling like a chump.

It's about not having to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If I have to, I'll turn off the "show signatures" option when viewing posts, the way I have over at TMF. But I'd prefer not to miss the sigs that do abide by the current rules - those are actually useful, even after seeing them a hundred times in a hundred posts.

And its about keeping the rules respectable. If it turns out that the general opinion is against me, and that most TT members consider big-ass sigs to be Just Fine, then the rules do need to be changed to reflect this rather than being ignored in this case. It's important that the rules be reasonable and evenly enforced so that the Mods don't come across as nasty arbitrary tyrants when a rule does get enforced.

 

[Violetta]

I don't think it's as much an issue that no members have a problem with it as much as, obviously, no staff has a problem with it. Big signatures are up there with duplicate accounts on the list of stuff that just doesn't demand attention when compared to things like people posting copyrighted material and keeping the forum civil. Does it make the rule kind of toothless? Yes, but them's the breaks.

Oh, and JTS, if you've got a problem with my sig, maybe you shold've said something in the five fucking years I've had it. Get a pass? I've already got one!

 

[jts963]

I don't think it's as much an issue that no members have a problem with it as much as, obviously, no staff has a problem with it. Big signatures are up there with duplicate accounts on the list of stuff that just doesn't demand attention when compared to things like people posting copyrighted material and keeping the forum civil. Does it make the rule kind of toothless? Yes, but them's the breaks.

Oh, and JTS, if you've got a problem with my sig, maybe you shold've said something in the five fucking years I've had it. Get a pass? I've already got one!

I'm saying something about it NOW. You don't like it? Tough. Your free pass is about to get scrutinized, big time. :cool

 

[Violetta]

Ah, the inconsequential sound of someone thinking they matter.

 

[jts963]

Ah, the inconsequential sound of someone thinking they matter.

Evidently that's the way you feel about almost everybody here. You'll learn (or maybe not learn, given your track record) that this isn't your website and you aren't calling all the shots here.

C'mon, aren't you going to threaten to leave again, for the umpteenth time? :lol

 

[Sablesword]

If sigs bigger than the official size are reasonable, then fine - but change the rules to reflect this. To mangle a metaphor, toothless rules have a way of biting one in the ass: I'd hate to see a kerfluffel where someone gets slagged for an obese sig and then whines "but but but Bella Donna's sig violates the size rules too, and she didn't get bothered about it!"

I'm calling for a little preventive maintenance to be applied before the issue arises. Either start enforcing the rules as they are, or else change the rules and then enforce that.

(I'd call Bella Donna's sig just within the bounds of reasonable even if it exceeds what the rules require (she's got an image of 640x125 - bigger than the official 300x100). But I wouldn't want to see sigs bigger than hers.)

 

[MistressValerie1]

The signature rule, which dates back to 2002 or earlier, has never been rigidly enforced. It should probably be changed to reflect a more realistic dimension limit of approximately 600x200.

I don't usually display signatures because of a slow connection, but I haven't received any complaints about oversized signatures in a long time. Members who wish to report an egregiously large signature may send a PM to one of the moderators.

Also, members should keep this discussion about forum signatures and not air out personal disputes here. Thanks in advance.

 

[Sablesword]

Because the sig rules haven't been enforced, I thought it would be better to give people an amnesty and a notice of any new rules before starting to report specific big sigs.

Also, I'd say that limiting the height of a sig is much more important than limiting the width. Width can be up to 800 pixels, as far as I'm concerned (or even just a vague "within reason.") But I think that image height should be limited to no more than 150 pixels - 150 total, if the sig has more than one image, and less than 150 total if the sig also has one or more lines of text above or below the image. As I posted before, I consider Bella Donna's sig to be an example of a sig that's just within the bounds of reasonable wrt size.

 

[CellarDweller]

I can sympathize with the mods on this issue. I mod another website where they are much more active with modding those kind of issues, and the rules are a little more strict than they are here.

On that website, signature lines MUST be static images, no animations or movement. The image must not be bigger than 50 X 640 pixels, and text used in the banner should not be much larger than the normal font sized used when posting. The sig image I have here I desgined to conform to those restrictions.

The rule also extends to avatars. The avatar should be no bigger than 65 x 65 pixels and no larger than 40 kbs, and can not be animated.

I think after all this time, it would be hard to start modding on this matter.

I do feel that large signature lines can be a big distraction, especially when the siggy lines are bigger than the actual posts. I do admit, that I laugh at some of the animated ones. There is one here (I can't recall the member) who has a woman dropping a water balloon on her cleavage. Every time I see it, I just laugh out loud.

 

[Violetta]

I think upping the dimensions listed in the rule was the best way to go. While I can certainly sympathize with people who have slower connections such as Val, by and large this is a time of almost exclusively high speed internet. After all, my phone can connect faster than my computer could ten years ago.

Honestly, it's been a long time since I've seen a signature that bothered me as far as size went. It looks like freakishly large images are out of fashion finally.

 

[His Divine Shadow]

Deciding what to allow is a hard choice to make. I'll be a bit long-winded here to try and explain why the rule is what it is. For clarity, here is the current rule, taken from the rules page.

Member signatures are to be kept at a reasonable size. Please do not include more than 5 lines of text or use fonts larger than size 3. Members using images in signatures are to be considerate to all members by keeping image dimensions no larger than 300x100 pixels and 35Kb in size.

First, file size. We have to be considerate of those users with slow connections. Despite the assumption that high-speed connections are available to all, that's not the case yet. If we take OECD data (report 1c) on wired connections and assume each connection represents a household of about 3 people, that's still only 180 million with broadband at home, leaving a good 100 million without. It's not everyone yet (I exclude wireless broadband from my estimation because a good chunk of that, if not nearly all, are cellular phones that most people won't use to regularly browse the TT). So, that constituency has to be considered.

Beyond slow connections, even lower- to mid-level broadband (say in the range of 1 mbps to 5 mbps) is taxed if everyone has a signature that is 500 kb in size. Consider a thread page with ten responders, each of whom has a 500 kb signature. You suddenly have to wait for 5 MB to download, and that takes unnecessary time.

What about dimensions? Well, I've always looked at it from a screen resolution point of view. Everyone won't use the full screen for their browser, but I have to assume that or I can't make any estimations. At the absolute limit, I would not want to allow signatures that took up more than perhaps a quarter or so of the average user's screen, either in height or in width. That way, one can easily read a post and a signature without too much scrolling. For many years, 800x600 was the most common resolution. That's no longer the case (see the W3Schools and SWS). 1024x768 now rules. The old signature rule fits 800x600 perfectly, but could probably stand to be updated.

File size and dimensions come together again when we think of slower machines. The more large (size and dimensions) images there are, the more an slower machine has to work to display a page. Not everyone has a fast machine, particularly if they're using a mobile phone or a netbook (which may not even be old).

We do want folks to report signature that seem out of bounds. Even if we decide it's legal, we want y'all to alert us. With Missy Val turning signatures off and me usually on a giant monitor, it's hard for us to spot problems. As with all things, report so that we may act.

So, there's lots to consider. We probably could stand to update the rule, and I am glad that everyone is sharing their thoughts here; it helps us to see what you need.

 

[shadowscurse1]

I kinda like pics and things in the sigs, it gives me more content to look at per page; but I also have DSl so they really don't affect me all that much in the loading department. I do agree that height should be more limited then width though, the taller it is the more you have to scroll, but if it's a good sig I really won't mind that either :lol

Bella's sig is fine, as is anything else around that size really. The only thing that might have an issue with it would be 800x600 not browsing at full screen. Then again if you're doing that you won't see much of the post anyway XD.

Just a few thoughts from the average user/lurker :stickout

 

[jts963]

For me the issue is not height, it's width. Anything over 600 pixels requires horizontal scrolling and that's just an unnecessary nuisance. Wouldn't be a problem if I could put certain faux moderators on ignore but I can't. I fully support Miss Valerie's suggestion of 600x200.

Enforce the current size or change it, I don't care, but you can't just ignore blatant violations of the rule, especially from persons who seem to flaunt it.

 

[the_jimmy_james]

Let's keep in mind all the people who browse the forum on WebTV and Nokia 5100 cell phones and require that all graphical content be removed.

Oh yeah, and people who use 300 baud modems on a PDP-11 with Lynx running on a Honeywell teletype.

Gotta keep those longety-beard UNIX guys in mind.

 

[Sablesword]

Ironically, the sig of HisDivineShadow violates the rules even as it exhorts posters to follow them. His sig image is 500x187 and 71KB (vs the current rules of 300x100 and 35KB)

I agree that a sig shouldn't force horizontal scrolling. What's the widest image that won't force horizontal scrolling when TT is viewed in a maximized browser on a 800x600 display?

I don't see size in KB as being an issue. If the connection is slow, the right solution is for the user to turn off sig displays rather than limiting posters to smaller ones. Likewise if the display is small (e.g. a cellphone or small tablet).

What bugs me is the height of sigs. Even though I have a fast connection and a great big (1920x1200) monitor, I still don't want to see sigs with heights of more than 150 pixels total.

A utopian option would be a user-preference control to shrink sigs that are bigger than a user-set maximum size. Or to just block sigs that are bigger than a certain size (rather than having to block or allow all sigs) But I doubt that the TT forum software can do this.

 

[Violetta]

Gotta agree that the real issue is vertical height. That's truly the only thing that makes signature images a pain. The extra scrolling makes browsing a thread a bit tedious.

I agree that a sig shouldn't force horizontal scrolling. What's the widest image that won't force horizontal scrolling when TT is viewed in a maximized browser on a 800x600 display?

Here's the only problem. Like HDS said, 800x600 worked a decade ago, but this is 2011. Limiting the rule to that resolution is really archaic in an age when your average low end is 1024x768. And that's assuming you have a 4:3 ratio screen, which is something you haven't been able to buy in stores for a couple of years at least. We should be looking at 1366x768 as an average screen resolution.

 

[His Divine Shadow]

Okay, vertical height it is. What do people consider a maximum size? We've heard from some, but I'd be interested both in those here who haven't spoken and who have. No guarantees we'll literally implement any suggestions, but we do want to hear your input.

Ironically, the sig of HisDivineShadow violates the rules even as it exhorts posters to follow them. His sig image is 500x187 and 71KB (vs the current rules of 300x100 and 35KB)

Absolutely correct. Truthfully, I've been violating the signature rule since my first signature (and it's been worse than this in the past). As Missy Val noted, we've usually only acted when a signature got complaints. If we don't hear about it, we assume no one cares. The less we moderate, the better. I've long considered my signatures to be either borderline or too big, but no one ever complains, so I figure no one cares.

As to your suggestion for the user option, it is true that it could be done, and I know how to do it, but it requires changing the software that the TT runs on, and I've not the time to do that (and I don't think any other staff aside from TickleTheater would be able to do it).

 

[Violetta]

I'd say, and this is from the perspective of someone using a 1440x900 resolution screen with browser maximized, an image over 200 pixels tall would risk becoming a distraction. Most banners that I see around the internet are only 100 to 150 pixels tall anyway, so I'd say 200 is a pretty reasonable amount of leeway.

 

[jts963]

Okay, vertical height it is.

Just like that, it's settled? Think about this: You're viewing a full thread with no sigs. Is vertical scrolling required to read the whole page? Of course. You have to vertically scroll in order to read a thread regardless of how high sigs are. The problem comes when needless horizontal scrolling is thrown into the mix.

 

[the_jimmy_james]

All modern web browsers have a Zoom feature, allowing you to scale page elements either up or down.

Zoom creates a panacea. Zoom makes all problems on websites, whether they be shittily-designed web "applications" or forums with giant graphics fit on your 386's screen.

Notice these images. They depict in this order:

Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox 5, Internet Explorer 9, and finally a comparison between Firefox displaying TT at 100% and at 75% or something.

Zoom is friend of all children.

 

[Sablesword]

Zoom shrinks text as well as images (and in fact generally has an option to shrink only text). The issue is that sigs are too big, and in particular too high relative to the text of the message. Zoom is therefore a complete non-solution.