Avatar/Signature Image Size Rule Change

Elc · Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:20 pm Post subject:

Yeah, and it would force the board into using those ugly horizontal scrollbars which, I'm sure, almost everybody hates. I agree that the 200 height by 700 width for banners is a bit on the large size. I like the added height, since it allows for more customization when it comes to creating banners with a screenshot. trying to get a 100 pixel high banner of something from, say, Lord of the Rings, is a nightmare considering the aspect ratio, but it's doable with a limit of 200 pixels.

As for the new avatar size, I think it's a great addition, though I don't see myself taking advantage of it in the near future. If possible, I'd want to keep any of my future avatars at the dimensions I currently use.

Fliktor, I don't think Icebergin has gone missing, per se. I see by the location in his profile that he is on an "aimless journey" so, maybe he's just taken a detour and will turn up again sooner or later.
_________________

"You make me smash the clock and feel, I'd rather die behind the wheel.
Time was never on my side, So on I wait my whole lifetime."

Beecham · Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:14 am Post subject:

I will deal with overly large signatures if I have to, but i refuse to deal with horizontal scroll bars. Nothing irks me faster.

If I can avoid both, I'll be an even happier camper.

Axiose · Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:36 am Post subject:

KonRei · Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:42 am Post subject:

i think i'm fine wtih my siggie that i made.......^_^
_________________
KonRei of Honky Tonk the Sharingan Archer

Today's angel are tomorrow's devil...fear it, live it, die with it... -Kon Rei

Njord · Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:10 pm Post subject:

Saben · Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 12:54 am Post subject:

Personally I think that 700x200 as a maximum limit is fine. Quite often I make signature images that are 300x200 and I would like to be able to make similar ones to put here. Square-ish rectangles make awesome looking signature images. I also think that a 700x100 signature image is acceptable and doesn't look too weird. 700x200 on the other hand IS cumbersome, overly large and ugly.

So I propose that you keep the 700x200 dimensions, however I think you should introduce another maximum of 60,000-100,000 sq pixels. That way people can have a 700x100 banner (or 600x100 if you go for the lower end area) and people can also have 500x200 (or 300x200) but massively big 700x200 sigs are not allowed.

I think 150x120 is quite acceptable for avatars and any within that should be allowed. Personally I like 150x100 avatars, but 150x120 allows people to have 120x120 or 120x80 size avatars, too.

Beecham · Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:43 am Post subject:

That is a remarkably good idea! I would be able to handle the taller images if they weren't so wide, it's when they're large in both dimensions that it becomes irksome. I do prefer longer to shorter, but, well, any compromise is better than a flat out 700x200 allowance :)

I would still prefer a 150 height restriction to 200, but that is merely my opinion only.

If I may suggest, if we go by Saben's suggestion, that we make the maximum dimensions 70,000? Thus, 700x100 or 350x200 or anything in between. If the max heighti s to be cut to 150, then, well, I don't feel like doing the math in my head. Something between four and five hundred by 150, in any regard. That sounds fairly reasonable to me.

Vextor · Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:29 am Post subject:

I'd prfer to make the rules simple. It'd be hilarious to see someone make a signature image that is 70000 x 1 pixels. Multiple restrictions can be difficult to enforce because it can be easily misunderstood, but I will think about it.

Calupict · Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:43 pm Post subject:

I'm agree with 700x200 for signature. I've been make it. See! Its size is 700x100

Beecham · Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 11:10 pm Post subject:

Well, I think what Saben and then myself meant was more that the maximums of 700 width and 200 height would be maintained, but that there would also be a maximum total area as well. Thus while you could have one that was tall it would have to be more narrow, or a wide one that was not as tall. Both at once is hard on the eyes.

Calupict, your's isn't bad. It's that nice happy 70,000 pixels I mentioned. I think I could bhe happy with seeing people have signatures that size.

Calupict · Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:41 pm Post subject:

kuwaizair · Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 8:53 pm Post subject:

well now, that just thows everthing off the balance for me. I got to make all new piccies for myself. (but i can't part with my current sig image)

any way, what fine types are allowed? well some browzers I know can't view Tiffs or PNG happly, but "thats the users problem"/
_________________
few runes short of a set of 27

Elc · Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 10:56 pm Post subject:

Beecham · Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 11:04 pm Post subject:

	Forum Index -> Community Forum	All times are GMT - 4 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3