Jump to content

Signatures


Recommended Posts

Yeah I was just making a point about that screen res, didn't mean that many people used it. I use stats to decide what to develop for. Less than 3% of our visitors use a resolution that small, it's not worth us developing the website to work on such obsolete technology when so few people use it. 1024 is unfortunately still the most popular for some reason, so we're forced to keep the width small enough to fit on that resolution, hence why 1000px is chosen for the main website.

The forum itself is 100% so it doesn't matter what screen width you're on, the banner will just look stretched is all. But if someone had an 800px wide sig, the entire page of forum posts where your sig appeared would be broken and difficult to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that wouldn't be very nice to the few people still stuck on 800x600 screens would it. And yes, file size is also an issue, as is aesthetics. It would look absolutely horrible. No need for a signature that wide.
Yeah I was just making a point about that screen res, didn't mean that many people used it. I use stats to decide what to develop for. Less than 3% of our visitors use a resolution that small, it's not worth us developing the website to work on such obsolete technology when so few people use it. 1024 is unfortunately still the most popular for some reason, so we're forced to keep the width small enough to fit on that resolution, hence why 1000px is chosen for the main website.

The forum itself is 100% so it doesn't matter what screen width you're on, the banner will just look stretched is all. But if someone had an 800px wide sig, the entire page of forum posts where your sig appeared would be broken and difficult to read.

It seems to me that you're sort of contradicting yourself. You don't want sigs to be that large due to members screen resolutions, yet you don't want to make a small banner due to the low amount of people with low screen resolutions. I wasn't suggesting the actual sig restrictions to be 800X200, that was just a random size. I just think it could be larger than 500X200, width wise.

Also, I'm not sure who said or suggested this, but didn't someone say that you should actually give the site a larger width because of the low number of people with a screen resolution of 1024X768? Although, from what you said, that's what the majority of the members use.

Besides, shouldn't it be up to the members if they'd want their sigs to be wider, provided that you allowed them to do that? Members wouldn't HAVE to make their sigs that size; I was just putting it out there that maybe some might want to experiment with wider sigs. That's the whole reason why I brought it up. But hey, it's your site; it's your call. I'm just suggesting it.

Edited by Harwood Butcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone had a sig wider than someone's screen, that would cause the page to stretch. That would force those people to scroll horizontally to be able to read anything.

Most people use 1024 or 1280 widths, although quite a few people have larger or smaller screens.

Just like a lot of people still use Internet Explorer 6 - we can't make the site only work in new versions or other browsers, cos that isolates those people out.

Why do you want a wider sig? Chris manages with a very small one, and everyone else in this topic is under the limit. Surely your post content is more important than a collection of userbars or links to your personal sites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone had a sig wider than someone's screen, that would cause the page to stretch. That would force those people to scroll horizontally to be able to read anything.

Most people use 1024 or 1280 widths, although quite a few people have larger or smaller screens.

Does anyone know how many members of the 3% that have 800X600 screen resolutions that are active users?

Why do you want a wider sig? Chris manages with a very small one, and everyone else in this topic is under the limit. Surely your post content is more important than a collection of userbars or links to your personal sites?

If I have more space to work with, I might be able to make better sigs, that's all. It's really no big deal. I totally understand why they can't be larger in height.

Again, this is just a suggestion. If Chris doesn't feel that the sigs should be larger, then that's his choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theres a difference between sigs and banners,

There is??? That's qwazy.

you might wana put more chicks we don't wana see in your sig but.. 1 is enough.

lol, this is actually the first sig I made with a "chick" in it. I wasn't suggesting this so I could add more "chicks" to my sig...I mean...that's what gif images are for. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'all already have annoyingly humongous signatures here anyway - 800x200 would be a bit nuts :P Although there aren't TOO many people that still actually use 800x600, there are others, like myself, who don't keep their browser maximized. I'm usually running on 1280x800 (where an 800px sig would be a problem) or 1440x900 (where it wouldn't be so much of a problem).

EDIT: That being said, I just realized I can turn off sigs. Do whatever you want with it now! :D

Edited by rappo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm sorry if this is the wrong area but could anyone maybe make me a sig i was thinking of getting a new one since i've had this one for a while...i can check on here on monday when i get a chance and if this is the wrong area then let me know where to ask...thank you and if anyone can make one please pm me and i will send pics of what i want a description..

thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...