signature restriction

[Church6360]

is there a restriction on the size of the signature we use? like pixel or meg?

[JetSwing]

number of characters which essentially is size

[Church6360]

i was thiknig about using this, maybe scaled down. yeah, scaled down.

[Kerry]

john did post some limits when the message board first changed to this graohical phpBB format, but those early posts were lost a long time ago.  The avatar limit is (ahem) 100x100 pixels, but I can't remember the signature size limit.  :dunno:

john?

[Church6360]

ahhh. i did not realize there was a limit on avatar. i'll fix it.

[Kerry]

You have a PM.

[iandunn]

I wouldn't think it would matter, since the image is going to be in the sig (so it won't stretch anything) and it's hosted off-site, so it doesn't cost GSTwins any bandwitdh.

Although it would be nice if you could reduce the quality of the image (use Save for Web in Photoshop, if you have it), 'cause right now that image is almost 190k, making it a pain for dial-up users.

[JetSwing]

if everyone had a huge image as a signature, more than half of any given thread would be signatures. though it doesn't cost the site anything, it forces users to download those images and clutters the forum. i'm totally against image signatures. a couple of lines of text should suffice.

if you must, use the avatar space which is pretty much wasted if you don't use it.

[Kerry]

I agree, except that the same thing applies to the horizontal dimension of avatars.  If someone tends to write multi-line posts (or has a multi-line signature block   ) then go ahead and have an avatar which is 150 or 175 pixels high.  But making it wider than 100 pixels also eats up screen space that could be used for "un"wrapping text lines, etc.

[Church6360]

it is a neat pic a friend made for me, but i think i will have him make a smaller and differently shaped one, i agree with JetSwing that eventually every thread would just look like a big repeating picture gallery.