Sig sizes, a grumble

[Sablesword]

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.

I've said it a number of times already in this thread, but for the record, I would prefer that 150 pixels be the new maximum height for sigs.

 

[the_jimmy_james]

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.

No it's not! It shrinks those evil-weevil signature pictures!

I would have thought claiming that it creates a panacea, and is friend of all children would have been a great clue that I was less than serious. Some of you guys really take this internet stuff to be srs bsns.

Everybody does realize that we're talking about pictures of things on a computer screen at a website about making people laugh, right? The issue we're talking about is moving a mouse arrow. We're not saving lives or something here.

Does this issue honestly require such discourse? For real?

 

[Sablesword]

Yes, this issue honestly does require this discourse. For real.

It's a matter of courtesy, like the rule against being intentionally unpleasant or disruptive in ones posts.

 

[His Divine Shadow]

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.

We aren't ignoring the issue of horizontal width, but the current limit is well within what I'd call safe. My current signature is a bit on the long side, but I'd call it potentially safe. 1024x768 is the current average monitor size, so if we restrict signatures to less than 1/2 of that width, then we generally make life okay for most. We cannot accommodate everyone, but this hits most. If you think that what I am suggesting is excessive, please do say so.

 

[the_jimmy_james]

Yes, this issue honestly does require this discourse. For real.

Well, after speaking with Vi, she told me of a very good reason for this discussion to continue. That said...

1366x768 appears to be the minimum size of displays sold for the past 24 months. Even the shittiest-ass netbooks ship with 1024x600 displays. Good ol' Apple's lowliest screen is 1280x800, and...

Warning: Irreverrence!

And everybody has a Mac right?

Anyway, yeah. That to me means that vertical size is far more important than horizontal. Displays are wide as all get-out now because apparently that's good or something. But that's an opinion, and opinions are like...

Well...

 

[Sablesword]

Sig width isn't a problem unless the sig is so wide that it forces horizontal scrolling. These days, that won't happen until the sig width is somewhere beyond 500 pixels (or even 600 or 700 pixels).

But many people find sig heights beyond 150-200 pixels or so to be unpleasant and disruptive even when viewing TT in a big display. That's what makes limiting sig heights so important.

To take HisDivineShadow's sig for an example: I have no problems with its width. But if I had my druthers he'd be required to cut its total height down to no more than two-thirds of its current value - with two lines of enlarged text, I'd want him to cut the image height down to only 100 pixels.

But even more than that, I'd like the idea to spread that "If you can make your sig shorter than the maximum allowed height, this is a Good Thing."

 

[Violetta]

As far as horizontal scrolling, on your average screen you'd have to have a length nearer to or surpassing 800 pixels. Both myself and cellerdweller have images just over 600, his even centered, and neither causes scrolling on any screen in my house, even on the tiny netbook.

I might agree on the height of HDS's image, since it is comparatively tall, and even the two lines of shrunken text seem to make it that much taller. I think maybe the best rule of thumb might be an image that makes it impossible to see two average posts at once is too tall.

 

[CellarDweller]

As someone with a dinosaur computer (it has a tower modem and old monitor) I have to say that my monitor seems to be smaller than the dimensions being thrown around. That being said, I can't ever recall coming across a sig line here that has required me to horizontally scroll.

 

[the_jimmy_james]

As someone with a dinosaur computer (it has a tower modem and old monitor) I have to say that my monitor seems to be smaller than the dimensions being thrown around. That being said, I can't ever recall coming across a sig line here that has required me to horizontally scroll.

The display resolutions we're talking about are common on notebook computers. Any desktop or workstation box worth its weight will be pushing HD rez on its display these days.

My personal thoughts on this start with the fact that I don't give a good Goddamn about vertical scrolling. It's a twitch of my finger. On my desktop, I flick the mouse wheel. On my portable, I scroll the touchpad. Less than a joule, after all.

That said, YMMV. You may like being able to view multiple posts at once in a thread. We all have our reasons for caring or not.

Then, excessive width is bad. Breaking frames means then the text spills off the right. Meh.

But in the end we either know or consensus says these things, and they've been discussed at this point until I think the forum software is going to develop some kind of instability if we keep it up...

1) People are more concerned with height than width. Anything above around 200px would be unacceptable.

2) Width isn't so bad since this isn't 1998 anymore, but anything wider than 650px would be absolutely stupid.

Conversely nobody has been able to cite anything that grossly destroys the TT viewing experience, and the word of the rule has been changed to accommodate the socially accepted norm.

Looks like everybody's happy and healthy and the world is safe for lovers of cool pictures and haters of excessive scrolling. I'd say all-in-all it's been a success.

Can we get a "Hear! Hear!"

 

[Sablesword]

Except that the rule hasn't been changed. All we have so far are proposals for a rule change.

As for citing things that "destroy the TT viewing experience" - well, too-high sigs do degrade my TT viewing experience. They degrade it enough for me to have started this thread and to keep contributing to it. They degrade it enough to approch the point where it would be less bad for me to hide sigs entirely.

I hope you would agree that TT with no sigs allowed at all would be a bummer. And therefore, if too-high sigs make things even worse than no sigs at all...

 

[MistressValerie1]

Rule updated temporarily to "approximately 600x150 pixels" to reflect current practices, may be revised further.

 

[Sablesword]

600x150 pixels is fine by me. But I'd suggest that the Kb size limit be increased as well, from the old/current 35Kb to, say, 125-150Kb.

Also I'd like to see something like this added to the rules: "Smaller sigs are encouraged. If you can express yourself in a sig of less than the maximum allowed size, that's a bonus."

 

[Sir Bombers]

I don't know if I can get away with this post without coming across as negative... but, here we go....

This thread has come to my attention from an admin message that says I had to change the size of my Sig... The rule has been temporarily been made, but I do not believe it has been done in a proper manner.

I believe that this is not a fair exchange to the opinions of the entire community which seems to have been doing just fine with over the limit size sigs. Yes, just because no one says it bothers them, doesn't mean it bothers no one, but we can also establish the large possibility that the greater portion of the forum community truly wasn't and probably still isn't bothered by the sig sizes. If only just a few members have been doing the complaining over the span of many years, then that says it truly isn't an major issue for the larger part of the community. Those who would truly find it an issue take the time to make statements which sablesword has done.


I've been through this entire thread and the only person that seems to have the greatest issue with the sig sizes is the original poster. If the issue isn't KB size or anything that would be even remotely taxing to your internet or computer system in the slightest, then it's just pure aesthetics or the fact that one simple, and at the time, outdated rule was not enforced even by the admins themselves... I'm guessing admins are too busy with other enforcing other more important rules, like underage media, trolls and spammers....

Some have given their opinion on vertical scrolling... In my opinion it doesn't bother me at all, because like most of the people here, my focus and primary reason for being in this online community isn't on the sigs or to be distracted by their size. My real attention is on the content within the threads which isn't very difficult to keep up if you try!

I see a sig, I laugh, and then move on, simple as that.

...and besides when a thread is really active, posts tend to get really long anyway... will there be complaints to have people limit the words in their posts just so you don't have to scroll up and down as much?

Something to consider is that this particular thread has been out since July and only a few, (and mostly the same) members have posted something...the fact that this thread isn't littered with input from tons of members of the community should speaks great volumes. It says that this rule is way too minor to be a big concern of the larger part of the community...it says that most of the community is too concerned with the vast tickling kink related content to be bothered by sigs or their sizes... that this issue is simply too trivial in the midst of everything else...

But...since admins have taken noticem I say more people should have had more input on this before any rule, temporary or otherwise should be put in place. Maybe a poll that gathers many opinions of big sig sizes asking if members care or could care any less about them... something that shows that this if largely ignored rule over the years really matters...

Lastly, my opinion on sigs in general is that in addition to whatever creative posts a member makes in the community, the sig is a little extra representation of what the member is. They are small testament of a member's dedication to the community through expression. To me, an oversized sig says "Hi!, I'm a very fun person who put this sig up to entertain." Why not have them be a little larger than standard?


(See how long my post was? Took a LOT of scrolling didn't it? )

 

[MistressValerie1]

Although large signatures are a low priority for the staff compared with spam, underage content, copyright infringement, and trolling, the admins have finally had a chance to discuss the signature rule and have decided on the following wording:

Member signatures are to be kept at a reasonable size. "Reasonable" means no larger than 35 kB and which does not distort the layout of the TickleTheater for a member with an average screen resolution. If a member's signature is larger than an average post and signature combined, it is too big. The TickleTheater staff reserve the right to edit signatures they deem inappropriate or of excessive size.

Members may, as always, choose to hide all signatures when viewing posts (User CP-> Edit Options, then scroll down to "Visible Post Elements," uncheck the box "Show Signatures," then click the "Save Changes" button at the bottom of the page).

 

[Jaynin]

Although large signatures are a low priority for the staff compared with spam, underage content, copyright infringement, and trolling, the admins have finally had a chance to discuss the signature rule and have decided on the following wording:



Members may, as always, choose to hide all signatures when viewing posts (User CP-> Edit Options, then scroll down to "Visible Post Elements," uncheck the box "Show Signatures," then click the "Save Changes" button at the bottom of the page).

So, is this new rule different from what I was informed about a few weeks ago when I was told that my sig was too big? I'll admit I kind of just had a fit of pique and outright deleted the image in my sig when I got the email (bad day, didn't feel like messing with the image, was kind of annoyed at getting called on something that had floated for years) and haven't really thought about it since.

I guess that I come down more on the side of Bombers and others who think that a few people complaining caused a fairly wide-ranging change, but I'm going to shut my trap here before I talk myself into any more trouble.

 

[sadi]

I don't like sigs that take my screen TOO LONG TO LOAD! You have a little animation, fine, whatever, but close to a youtube video or BIG 'very' high quality animation, whatever (I'm technologically incompetent, okay? But I own a MacBook Pro, Mac OS X 10.5.8 if that 'clears' anything up - or not) and sometimes my scrolling's choppy because of a 'video' in someone's sig.
That, and if you try to go onto this site through your phone, iPhone, PSP (?) or other 'small' device, it takes a LONG while to load those screens - just because of the video sig!
But those people don't seem to post too much now so... just my 0.02¢.

 

[Spawn190]

Oh really? I will play the the grandfather card then!:stickout

 

[MistressValerie1]

So, is this new rule different from what I was informed about a few weeks ago when I was told that my sig was too big? I'll admit I kind of just had a fit of pique and outright deleted the image in my sig when I got the email (bad day, didn't feel like messing with the image, was kind of annoyed at getting called on something that had floated for years) and haven't really thought about it since.

I guess that I come down more on the side of Bombers and others who think that a few people complaining caused a fairly wide-ranging change, but I'm going to shut my trap here before I talk myself into any more trouble.

The new rule was designed to be more flexible and to focus on the distraction or annoyance factor rather than a specific image size. We found it necessary to modify the rule after several groups of signatures were reported for being oversized after the temporary rule change.

Personally, I would recommend a signature of not more than 650x150 pixels and 35 kB to ensure that it won't bog down the page, but common-sense deviations from these dimensions are permitted.

 

[PurpleStyle]

Apologies for the necromancy, but I for one, am glad that we don't allow the gigantic eyesore sigs that are allowed on such places like the TMF. Their sigs take up more space than their posts.