Hight limitations for images in signatures.

[Coco Pommel 669]

Normally, I don't make any suggestions for forums, but I'd like to point out something that has bothered me.

 

Frankly, the height limitations for images in signatures are kind of silly. 600 pixels for width is quite enough, but 100 pixels is a little bothersome for some people, such as me. I think the height limitations should be at least 150 pixels. I understand that the staff probably doesn't want huge images in members' signatures, but the height limits for images in signatures are a little bothersome on my part.

 

I will completely respect the staff if height stays at 100 pixels; I'm just saying.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Axis

[---------------------- 1,645]

Normally, I don't make any suggestions for forums, but I'd like to point out something that has bothered me.

 

Frankly, the height limitations for images in signatures are kind of silly. 600 pixels for width is quite enough, but 100 pixels is a little bothersome for some people, such as me. I think the height limitations should be at least 150 pixels. I understand that the staff probably doesn't want huge images in members' signatures, but the height limits for images in signatures are a little bothersome on my part.

 

*shrugs*

I have had situations when making signatures, I had some trouble height wise, but it always works out perfectly, I don't see any reason to change it, if it aint broke don't fix it.

[Marcato 2,143]

Most forums i know have 100 as the limit, some even shorter. In my opinion its best that they leave it where it is. If it was larger, people would be making these unnecessarily massive banners, when they could easily express the same things in a smaller size. Frankly it would just make pages far bigger, when they dont need to be. What else is there really to show anyways? Not much to advertise, and you don't need a large banner for your name.

 

So, really I don't see a reason to change it that's valid and of some importance. I am not entirely sure, but i think if you want a larger image, you put the image in a spoiler so it technically bypasses the height limit and then doesnnt take up space unless clicked on. Again, i'm not sure if this works, but it's worth a shot.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Silver Arrow

[Zoop 8,384]

Keeping signatures relatively small helps to cut down on unnecessary vertical scrolling and image clutter. I can't really say that I am in favor of any increase to the existing limitations.

 

As a side note, ridiculously large signatures drive me batty

[Neikos 968]

On most forums I visit, signatures are just disabled. But 100px on a website is already a lot.

[Guest]

Have to mess about wit it quite a bit, but I don't mind :T

[Twilight Sparkle ✨ 8,527]

Think of your signature literally - you sign your posts with it. When writing an email or a letter, do you attach the story of your life (often much longer than the actual message) to the end of it? No, you usually just sign your name and sometimes include a little detail or something, like your job title and phone number. Some people might include a witty quote as well.

 

As Silver Arrow said, gigantic signatures lengthen pages and make for a lot of scrolling. With the majority of the site's users using relatively low resolution screens (1000 or fewer pixels of vertical space), it greatly improves the end-user experience and makes threads infinitely more comfortable to read. It's something most users will not consciously realize, but it subconsciously improves their opinion and enjoyment of the site and keeps people invested in the site longer.

 

Signature limits aren't changing anytime soon.

[Rainbow Danger Dash 145]

i find it okay

[Coco Pommel 669]

Think of your signature literally - you sign your posts with it. When writing an email or a letter, do you attach the story of your life (often much longer than the actual message) to the end of it? No, you usually just sign your name and sometimes include a little detail or something, like your job title and phone number. Some people might include a witty quote as well.

 

As Silver Arrow said, gigantic signatures lengthen pages and make for a lot of scrolling. With the majority of the site's users using relatively low resolution screens (1000 or fewer pixels of vertical space), it greatly improves the end-user experience and makes threads infinitely more comfortable to read. It's something most users will not consciously realize, but it subconsciously improves their opinion and enjoyment of the site and keeps people invested in the site longer.

 

Signature limits aren't changing anytime soon.

 

Fair enough. Like I noted earlier, I have complete respect if no changes are made. Your reasons are understandable, and this is just a website after all. :3 I have bigger things to think about.

[Marshmallow 1,137]

I think that there is no size limitation if you upload your signature to a third-party image hosting site and then insert the image in your signature by using the image button like you would when you're linking an image from another site to your post.

 

Now I haven't tested it personally, but I remember seeing people doing that to avoid the size limitations on signature. It might or might not have been fixed since then. But, like other people have said before, large signatures tend to be annoying and they slow down the site. And 100x600 is plenty enough to make a good signature! ^^