Thought on signatures...

Recently I re-sized my signature because it didn't comply with the filesize limitations stated in the rules.

Granted, this didn't even classify as an inconvience, but I'm curious as to why a limit has been placed on filesize.

I can understand deeping certain size restraings like 500x200 or such, but I can't really see the 50KB part.

The images are not hosted on afterdawn, and therefor do not consume any of the websites bandwidth because their embedded from image hosting websites.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable or anything, just wondering if there was a reason that I'm failing to understand.

But seeing as no explination is given as of yet, my suggestion is this:

We should modify the rules to remove filesize limitations on images. This would allow for higher-quality images, and the size difference would be minimal. It wouldn't even hinder users visiting via dial-up in most cases.

 

yea but couldnt dial up users disable all images as i used to do when thats what we had?

 

you can with five clicks with firefox,

1. tools
2 options
3 content
4 load images automatically
5 ok

 

not sure, i never use it, but ill check here in a second for yea.

yep you can.

1 tools
2 internet options
3 advanced
4 scroll down to multimedia and untick show pictures

 

Thanks, wabashman.

So this would mean that the AD staff could allow for more than 50KB, but that'd come at the cost of educating dial-up users about how to disable the images.

But on a percentage scale, do enough people really use dial-up internet anymore that we should put thought into it? I mean... If only 6% of people who visit the site do so through dial-up, that would mean that the other 94% are having to change the quality of their images to accomidate a very (VERY) small minority.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, I'm just, I guess, wondering if there's really enough of a user-base on dial-up to justify special action.

 

Noted, of course, but even with the transparent backing of my original signature (the HD version of the one I'm using now), the size came in at 85KB, if I had put the nice HD background to it that I wanted to, that would have boosted the size up to 110KB.

Could the quality have been reasonably lowered to meet limitations, yes, and it has.

But I guess I'm just a bit of a detail-oriented person. I mean, if someone spends time making highly detailed images that fit the page size requirements, and the majority of users are not hendered by these larger filesizes, why should the quality have to go down at all?

But with respect, the quality difference between my current signature and its original is merely cosmetic, and in fact people who had not seen the original might never know that the quality was reduced. So is it an inconvience to lower quality by... let's say 15% in order to cut file size down by 60%? Not really. But it does, in a way, put a limitation as to what people can do with their signatures, creatively.

There are some images, for example, that are so vast in color and detail, that I could never make them less than 50k without ruining the image as a whole.

But in review of this thread, I can see the point of the limitation, and if no one feels further need to discuss it, I would completely understand.

 

I see it as a "distraction". I am not interested in your signature or your choice of expression. I am interested in the content of your post.

 

well then dont look at it. granted i feel that people shouldnt have a signature the size of texas, but the 'quality' of a signature doesnt matter to me. if its still 2 inches by 3 inches idc if its 50 kb or 500kb as long as it doesnt take up anymore room than it normally would.

 

I appreciate your opinion. My point was if you've got a signature that is larger than your post, how can I NOT look at it?

 

well my sig is usually larger than my post. mainly because i dont beat around the bush when it comes to telling someone why they can or cannot do what they are asking. ive always thought why waste a persons time reading a book when a simple 3 liner will do just fine.

 

^ Which is why I agree with the size limitation (dementions), but I still sort of wish the filesize limitation would be removed for sake of improved quality.

But, if quality is something that no one will notice, then what's the point, really?