Signature

[Dallas-Dakota]

Rather be safe and sure,, so is it currently too long?
I'l happily make it shorter, please don't warn/infraction me if it's too long.

[Recaiden]

It appears to be 13.4 lines, out out of 12 maximum. Possibly 14.4, depending on how blank space is counted.

[Dallas-Dakota]

Dang, oh well.

Well I put a well bunch of stuff in the spoiler now.
Please close, since it's less then 12 now.

[Roland St. Jude]

It's still not compliant. It exceeds the maximum total image height (120 pixels) and is still a bit over twelve lines worth of space.

[arguskos]

As a question, is it possible to actually hardcode in a limitation on the space available in the signature, so you can't put in an image that's too big? :smallconfused:

Seems like it would save lots of effort, though it might not be possible.

[NerfTW]

That would be the opposite of saving effort. There aren't that many people with large sigs, and it's far easier to just tell them than it is to code, test, and hope there's no bugs.

[Jack Squat]

As a question, is it possible to actually hardcode in a limitation on the space available in the signature, so you can't put in an image that's too big? :smallconfused:

Seems like it would save lots of effort, though it might not be possible.

It's possible, but I wouldn't say it's practical. It's a lot of coding for them to do with this site; I wouldn't say it's high on their priority list.

I mean, they haven't even added a [spoiler] button :smalltongue:

[Rawhide]

No, it is not possible. Signature images are not hosted on GitP.

[arguskos]

But you can't limit the signature SPACE? So if an image would exceed it, you can't actually put it into the signature to begin with?

@Nerf: Well, yes, I imagine it'd be tricky, but I was merely wondering if it's possible at all.

@Jack: See, you've got the idea I was going for. :smallamused:

Really, this is for my education as well as a real thought that's possibly worth considering.

[Rawhide]

No, it is not possible. The images would need to be hosted on GitP.

[Haruki-kun]

But you can't limit the signature SPACE? So if an image would exceed it, you can't actually put it into the signature to begin with?

@Nerf: Well, yes, I imagine it'd be tricky, but I was merely wondering if it's possible at all.

@Jack: See, you've got the idea I was going for. :smallamused:

Really, this is for my education as well as a real thought that's possibly worth considering.

What you're suggesting is installing software into the forum that detects the size of an image in a signature that's hosted in a separate site, checks to see whether it's above 120 pixels tall, then checks to see if position-wise it is not on top of another image that would add up to more than 120 pixels tall, and also has to make sure that said image is outside a spoiler, since images can be taller in spoilers.

While I'm sure this is plausible in the world of programming overall, it sounds pretty hard to install something like this here.

EDIT: Rawhide beat me to it. :smalltongue:

[arguskos]

Fair enough! Wasn't sure the level of control that existed for such things. Thanks for indulging my questions, sorry if I was a bother.

[Rawhide]

For anyone who might still think it's possible. Can you imagine what having a script checking the size of up to four images per signature, that may be arranged horizontally or vertically (or a combination of both), every single time a page is loaded or refreshed would do?

[Serpentine]

I think he was thinking of it being used at character creation - if it exceeds a particular height or whatever, it simply isn't accepted, like when you go over the 1000 character limit (curse it!). Still doubt that it's possible.

[arguskos]

I think he was thinking of it being used at character creation - if it exceeds a particular height or whatever, it simply isn't accepted, like when you go over the 1000 character limit (curse it!). Still doubt that it's possible.
Precisely, this is what I kept meaning to communicate. Still, sorry to bother you all with my incessant questions. I'll wander back into Homebrew and Gaming (Other), where I belong. :smallredface:

[Rawhide]

We can't install size limits on Inkskape, MS Paint, Illustrator or another program that the person may use to create the image.

More than one image is allowed and they can be arranged horizontally, vertically, or a combination of both.

People often change an image by changing the file, not by making a new file and changing the link.

The images would need to be downloaded to the GitP server and then checked.

---

Also, to answer something else, blank space in the signature is always counted.

[Dallas-Dakota]

It's still not compliant. It exceeds the maximum total image height (120 pixels) and is still a bit over twelve lines worth of space.

Thenks, I put the meet-up image next to the webcomic of the week in the spoiler.

So length and total image hight should be alright now?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

In terms of vertical space on the board, I've seen a lot of forums that seem to place a max-height on the sig-space along with "overflow: auto" in the board's stylesheet. Something like that wouldn't actually enforce the rule, but it would reduce the impact of signatures that break it from the perspective of those that are annoyed by overly long sigs. It would also give those who have too long a sig a little hint when the scroll-bars pop up.

(This is not intended as an unsolicited suggestion. I'm just interested in hearing opinions on this sort of thing.)

[Serpentine]

Don't forget that 1-sized font is worth... half a line, wasn't it?

[Dallas-Dakota]

Yeah, half a line.

But anything worth being in my sig, is something which I want attention to, so making it size 1 kinda negates that. >.>

[Szilard]

Don't forget that 1-sized font is worth... half a line, wasn't it?

That's why I usually try to keep my sig at 1-sized. It's easier and doesn't clutter as much.

[Rawhide]

In terms of vertical space on the board, I've seen a lot of forums that seem to place a max-height on the sig-space along with "overflow: auto" in the board's stylesheet. Something like that wouldn't actually enforce the rule, but it would reduce the impact of signatures that break it from the perspective of those that are annoyed by overly long sigs. It would also give those who have too long a sig a little hint when the scroll-bars pop up.

(This is not intended as an unsolicited suggestion. I'm just interested in hearing opinions on this sort of thing.)

Have actually looked into this sort of thing, but haven't had the time to devote to it. If we implement a maximum sized cell (for want of a better word), it would have to not affect the size of the signature at all. i.e. Both not add anything to the existing size and more importantly not expand all signatures to the maximum signature size, regardless of their actual size.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Have actually looked into this sort of thing, but haven't had the time to devote to it. If we implement a maximum sized cell (for want of a better word), it would have to not affect the size of the signature at all. i.e. Both not add anything to the existing size and more importantly not expand all signatures to the maximum signature size, regardless of their actual size.
Right.

Now, max-height and max-width in CSS should not change the size of anything that's under the specified size. The only time it should change something's size is if it goes over the specified size. So specifying a max-height without any other height rule would not add extra space. The trick here is that there may still be a few browsers that don't really do max-height very well. But as far as I know, it's a non-support issue rather than bugs, so that would leave those browsers no worse than we all currently are, as they'd just ignore the max-height restriction and display it normally.

Now, I haven't checked the specifications on overflow, but my experience with auto overflow in Opera has the box adding the scrollbars using space already in the box. So it would reduce the amount of space inside the cell to make room for the scrollbars rather than adding space outside. Of course, you could also set overflow to "hidden" to simply clip excess signature space instead. That would mean no scrollbars and all excess signature would be unreachable. But then you'd probably want to set the max-height in ems or something like that to account for different people's browser text settings.

[NerfTW]

Yeah, half a line.

But anything worth being in my sig, is something which I want attention to, so making it size 1 kinda negates that. >.>

So you feel a pointless counter for "internets" is something worth being in your sig? :smallconfused:

[Haruki-kun]

So you feel a pointless counter for "internets" is something worth being in your sig? :smallconfused:

:smallsigh:

Some people like this sort of thing. At the very least it makes me feel appreciated.

[Dallas-Dakota]

It does miracles for low self-esteem.
I like it. >.>
Makes me feel appreciated.
And being 1# with rate of Internets/day feels cool.

[Mordokai]

*gives cookieman an internet*

I don't really buy all these counting things as measure of popularity, but if it helps you, who am I to hold you back.

Also, I believe my signature is mostly in line, pardon the pun. Lately I've been having luck with finding correct eggs that I want, but other than that I believe everything should be fine.

[Zherog]

Also, I believe my signature is mostly in line, pardon the pun. Lately I've been having luck with finding correct eggs that I want, but other than that I believe everything should be fine.

You're images are 2 pixels too wide. :smallwink: Max is 468, you seem to be at 470.

[Mordokai]

Not too be bitchy or anything, but... how the hell do you know that?!?

No really, I really want to know :smallbiggrin:

[Mr. Mud]

Eh, I'm not sure if there is anything out there, but it seems like it'd be fairly easy to find/program something that auto-hides all signatures that are too long... although that doesn't really fix the image deal

[Zherog]

Not too be bitchy or anything, but... how the hell do you know that?!?

No really, I really want to know :smallbiggrin:

I normally wouldn't have checked, but... right-click, select properties. Add up the value of each image.

[Mordokai]

Looks like I drank one too many of you tonight :smalltongue:

[Zherog]

You're a lucky, lucky man. :smallwink:

[Rawhide]

Eh, I'm not sure if there is anything out there, but it seems like it'd be fairly easy to find/program something that auto-hides all signatures that are too long... although that doesn't really fix the image deal

No, this would very much not be possible.

[Mr. Mud]

@ Rawhide: Maybe not at autohiding the signatures, but how about at reading line length? I mean, it wouldn't have to look at every page, maybe just when signatures are created?

[Rawhide]

@ Rawhide: Maybe not at autohiding the signatures, but how about at reading line length? I mean, it wouldn't have to look at every page, maybe just when signatures are created?

See:

More than one image is allowed and they can be arranged horizontally, vertically, or a combination of both.
And add to this that all images and text may be either inside, outside or both inside and outside of a spoiler.


Also:

The images would need to be downloaded to the GitP server and then checked.


For the record, vBulletin does have a line checker (which does not and can not check images). We had it implemented for a while just as an extra technical measure. However, it does not play nice with spoilers and was thus turned off.

[Mr. Mud]

Ah okay, thanks for the clarification :smallbiggrin:.

[Zherog]

See:

And add to this that all images and text may be either inside, outside or both inside and outside of a spoiler.

The other piece, which Rawhide also mentioned earlier, that would make this a very difficult task (and put too large a strain on the server, even if you could pull it off) is the fact that an image isn't necessarily static. For example, right now, http://home.comcast.net/~jeling/smilies/guinness_by_ego.gif points to my avatar. But I could just as easily put another file on my web space that has the exact same name.

Because of this, the program* wouldn't be able to check at the time a sig was updated; it would have to check it every time the sig loads. That would be a pretty intensive piece of code, I would guess, and certainly would use resources that could be better put to use for other stuff.

Not to open an old can of worms, but I'm generally of the opinion that any reasonable piece of code can be written, given enough time and money. Of course, just because it can doesn't mean it should. :)

[Mr. Mud]

The other piece, which Rawhide also mentioned earlier, that would make this a very difficult task (and put too large a strain on the server, even if you could pull it off) is the fact that an image isn't necessarily static. For example, right now, http://home.comcast.net/~jeling/smilies/guinness_by_ego.gif points to my avatar. But I could just as easily put another file on my web space that has the exact same name.

Because of this, the program* wouldn't be able to check at the time a sig was updated; it would have to check it every time the sig loads. That would be a pretty intensive piece of code, I would guess, and certainly would use resources that could be better put to use for other stuff.

Not to open an old can of worms, but I'm generally of the opinion that any reasonable piece of code can be written, given enough time and money. Of course, just because it can doesn't mean it should. :)

Ah okay. Sounds logical enough...

I guess the easiest solution, is just making it more evident of what the rules are. (I mean, I rad the rules at first, thoroughly, but a few years later when I edit a sig, I'm not going to remember exact parameters to meet). Maybe some reminder or sorts should be on the signature editing page? Something big, and red, preferably :smalltongue:.

[NerfTW]

Ah okay. Sounds logical enough...

I guess the easiest solution, is just making it more evident of what the rules are. (I mean, I rad the rules at first, thoroughly, but a few years later when I edit a sig, I'm not going to remember exact parameters to meet). Maybe some reminder or sorts should be on the signature editing page? Something big, and red, preferably :smalltongue:.

I always find signature rules to be generous anyways. I think the best thing to do is pretend you're still in the age of 800x600 resolution monitors. That's why I have such a stick up my bum about signatures, because I remember the days when a 200 pixel tall signature took up a third of the screen. And even then I could fit good information in 100 pixels.

Signatures don't need to be a complete autobiography. You can link to a web page for that. Not to mention that "clever" anecdote isn't so clever the fifteenth time you see it in a thread. I love the spoiler function on this board for that. I think it's a great way to fit in board specific stuff. (Homebrews, games, etc)

In my mind, signatures are just that. A way of immediately identifying who's talking. Since most people just ignore the left sidebar with names/pictures, I think all a signature needs is something unique that reminds you whose post you're reading. Anything more and it just becomes gratuitous.

The worst signature I've ever seen was literally an 800 pixel tall collage of images of the poster's favorite sci fi shows, with a giant message scrawled across it telling people that it was technically in the limits, and to stop bugging him about it. There was literally no point to it. Oh, you like Buffy, Angel, Babylon Five, and whatever else was popular at the time? Great, nobody cares.

[Charity]

Bloody hell, I turned sigs back on to see what the fuss is all about... only to notice Z has a sig!
Inconceivable!

[Dallas-Dakota]

Z has had a sig for a looong time now....

Or that might be my faulty memory...

[Mystic Muse]

Or that might be my faulty memory...

what are you doing with Faulty's memory?:smallconfused:

[Lady Tialait]

I think mine is compliant. Havn't had any complaints so I just assumed.

[Recaiden]

I think it's 11.3 lines.

[Dallas-Dakota]

what are you doing with Faulty's memory?:smallconfused:
We have a member named Faulty now?:smallconfused: An active member named Faulty, anyway?

[Recaiden]

We have a member named Faulty now?:smallconfused: An active member named Faulty, anyway?

He changed it from Amesouers or something like that. Has the Eilistraee avatar?

[Zherog]

Bloody hell, I turned sigs back on to see what the fuss is all about... only to notice Z has a sig!
Inconceivable!

Yeah, I know it's a little long but I really wanted to get that link to the freelancer's writing guild I belong to in there.

[Charity]

Now see what you've done, Pandora's box cannot be closed. I will have to keep them on just in case...
I'm a broken man Z

[Zherog]

Oh, please. You were a broken man before this. Don't even try blaming it on me. :smalltongue:

[Charity]

Brokener then...

So what bit have you writ? (on yer heavily advertised, super showy link of ostentation what is dazzling my poor eyes)

[Zherog]

It's not entirely up to date, but this is my member page (http://www.werecabbages.com/taxonomy/term/6).