# Proposal - Signature Size Restrictions



## jumpman17 (Jan 12, 2004)

Please, can we change the size restrictions? We would still of course need rules, but the current ones are way too tight. This never seemed too much of a problem until a recent topic. Someone mentioned that a sig was too big and the artist dumped his great sig and is now discouraged. Here are the rules I suggest.

1) Under 50kb file size for those with 56k modems.
2) Width must be 550 pixels or less, that's a little under the size of the space of GBATemp's length of a 800x600 screen.
3) Height must be 175 pixels or less, that should be plenty of room to do your thing.

Here's where it gets a little tricky though.

4) Don't make it 550x175, that's too big. Make it something like 500x100 or 300x175.

I hope all this makes sense. Can this be discussed at the next staff meeting?


----------



## dEC0DED (Jan 12, 2004)

only as long as its not as big as peoples wallpapers on thier PCs


----------



## Opium (Jan 12, 2004)

I'd like to see the sig restictions removed completely and instead the members just use there common sense on what size to make a sig.
I brought this up and it will be discussed at the next staff meeting which is currently (it's not absolutely positive yet) set for 1 week from now.


----------



## bajibbles (Jan 12, 2004)

Well, the thing is even if those with 56k modems are restricted (cruel, btw) they will still view the larger files and get bogged down.

I understand what you're saying, though... Ronin's sig is magnificent, but its out of restrictions. You can't play favorites here. I think that youre dimension restrictions are OK,  550 a bit big maybe 450, bit the size limit should stay. (Ronin's sig is well under that, btw).


----------



## Inu268 (Jan 12, 2004)

QUOTE(Opium @ Jan 12 2004 said:


> I'd like to see the sig restictions removed completely and instead the members just use there common sense on what size to make a sig.


that would work,BUT most of the member here dosent have common sense 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 and it would be a trouble for the staff to keep removing oversized signatures.....i remember the evil face signature removed by the staff thing......hummmm....550x200 would be the best
@ben-i think jumpman mean under 50kb not just for those with 56k modem,but in respect of those with 56k modem.....this may sound confusing,but read it 3 or 4 times and you will understand....


----------



## Opium (Jan 12, 2004)

Yes the size limit should stay, I forgot to mention that  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



But you should just use your own judgement as to what size the sig is. That's what i'd like to see anyway.

@Inu, I trust most members to have a reasonable size sig 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If not it's not a big problem to ask them to remove it. When we didn't have sig restrictions there wasn't that big of a problem. I think this was all blown out of proportion a bit.


----------



## dEC0DED (Jan 12, 2004)

after reading in the thread Sig For Kotainka2 Â2004 Ronin and how Ronin's art had to be reduced in size, I realized how stupid the restrictions are.

I personally feel sorri for Ronin and his art and think that the next meeting should say that all moderators of GBAtemp.net should have unlimited siggi size.


----------



## Inu268 (Jan 12, 2004)

QUOTE([K0R) said:
			
		

> ,Jan 12 2004, 05:14 AM] I personally feel sorri for Ronin and his art and think that the next meeting should say that all moderators of GBAtemp.net should have unlimited siggi size.


that wouldnt help,it would cause more trouble......the rules need to be the same for everybody!!!and in the topic you said,the signature wasnt for ronin,it was for another person,then unlimeted size for mods wouldnl help at all.....and there is a need for the rules,we are talking about change the limit for somethin bigger,but unlimeted is nonsense.......and dont think i am following you or anything,i was just lighting some things....


----------



## mole_incarnate (Jan 12, 2004)

Although its against my eithics as a designer to say so, making it bigger would be O K, as long as it isnt over 500x150 (thats PLENTY big), and I wouldnt be strict on enforcing it, ie in ronin's case, its really the filesize that counts, uner 50kb should still apply. Remember, thats about 10-12 seconds to load on a 56k!


----------



## Dais (Jan 12, 2004)

Most people are already posting all around the place with a tribute to their pointless vanity and overall worthlessness permanently nailed to each and every thing they say.....who cares if it rapes some people's bandwidth?


----------



## dEC0DED (Jan 12, 2004)

QUOTE(Dais @ Jan 12 2004 said:


> Most people are already posting all around the place with a tribute to their pointless vanity and overall worthlessness permanently nailed to each and every thing they say.....who cares if it rapes some people's bandwidth?








I agree with this guy!


----------



## esrion (Jan 12, 2004)

if you don't like sigs, just use the option in your control panel to turn them off, wise guy.


----------



## lum (Jan 12, 2004)

yeah, i agree, hopefully the 400x100 thing is removed and is based on filesize rather than size size, u have my full support Ronin.


----------



## Tempest Stormwin (Jan 12, 2004)

While I am of the same opinion Opium put forward, I see reason to quantifying "reasonable" to make it easier to enforce (another concern we hear recently). Mole and Jumpman present reasonable examples of what "reasonable" means, in numbers.

The only part I'm certain of keeping, though, is the 50 kb limit.

-Tempest out.-


----------



## Dragonlord (Jan 12, 2004)

I donno... size restrictions you really need. There are people not having a relation for reasonable. A little bit bigger would not hurt (perhaps then my sig text could be better read) but it`s not a must.

Filesize restrictions a must. I don`t know for what you need 50kb or more. My flash sig has anims, interaction and all the stuff and is around 15kb which I think is a nice size for 56 modem people. Having restrictions also enforces people to use file formats and bit depths correctly


----------



## KotaInka2 (Jan 12, 2004)

[K0R] already linked to the now closed topic which contains my view of the matter. However, I will summarize, here, those views for those who don't wish to read through essay posts.

KB size restriction of 50K = RULE, strictly enforced by the staff for the protection of the dial up portion of the community, even though it is possible to turn off avas/sigs altogether. I know there is the option to turn them off, but I STILL wholeheartedly concur with this rule.

Visual space restriction of 400x100 = GUIDELINE, left open to interpretation by the staff, as this seems designed to prevent overly large space hogging sigs. If this method is used, no increase in the 400x100 is really needed, but it still wouldn't hurt to reduce the burden on a staff judgement call.


----------



## Darkforce (Jan 12, 2004)

NO NO NO NO!

Signature restrictions must not be reduced. 400x100 is easily big enough...remember there are people here using 800x600.
The height is the worse problem anyway seeing how the larger the height the more page scrolling required (nightmare on browsers less than 1024x768).

As for the file size...being on 56k I know all about this. 50kb is easily enough so be thankful for it...if it's larger than 50kb learn to optimise your work for god sake...it's not hard and most people could get their work down to less than 1/4 of the original size, with hardly any, if any, visible appearance.

If any more restrictions should be enforced it should be on people abusing the avatar settings, or lack of should I say, in terms of filesize...


----------



## Garp (Jan 12, 2004)

OK...time for the Resident Wimp to open his big mouth and jump in here, if anyone cares about what I think. 
As far as the 50Kb limit, I'm all for that. I think it was a great idea, a wonderful line to draw, and is perfect for people regardless of their connection. No problems there, and I think everyone agrees with that, so we'll just toss that one out the window and move on to the next one.
Size restrictions. Now this is a trickier topic. The question is whether it should be 400X100 or less or more. I am definitely opposed to less. Those of us with 1280X1024 can barely see the smaller sigs, and I would hate to see good work shrunk down even more. I am also opposed, however, to sigs that are too excessive. How excessive? Let's say anything over 500 or 150. Here's my thought, for what it's worth. Keep 400X100 as the standard. HOWEVER, make it able to be appealed in certain situations or needs. There are times, such as the recent example, where an absolutely gorgeous piece of work is done and would simply not be feasable in a smaller detail. In these instances, they could appeal to the admin for an exemption for that particular piece. This would allow leeway to be done, as long as everyone trusted the admin not to be biased in any way, but still maintain a strict guideline. I think there are VERY few occasions where anything needs to be in excess of 400X100, but I do think the occasions exist as has been seen recently.
Upon appeal, the admin will consider the work itself as well as the proposed size, and consider whether this will affect those that are browsing at 800X600. If it is doable and it is considered to be necessary for the piece, it will be allowed. If it is not acceptable, it won't be allowed. Simple as that. That's my two cents for what it's worth. I'm going to shut up now.


----------



## Ruth (Jan 12, 2004)

I think something around 500 x 150 accomodates most of the larger "work". I guess you have to appreciate the fact that an artist who creates something of their own, can't just shrink it down to 400 x 100. It just doesn't work...
I know not everyone cares for sigs, graphics or art, but there are people who do, and so long as the file size is small, I don't see it to be a problem to allow the sig to be larger.


----------



## TyrianCubed (Jan 12, 2004)

You couldn't say it better Garp...as usual 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



You're great pal 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



I agree with you!


----------



## jumpman17 (Jan 12, 2004)

Please, can we change the size restrictions? We would still of course need rules, but the current ones are way too tight. This never seemed too much of a problem until a recent topic. Someone mentioned that a sig was too big and the artist dumped his great sig and is now discouraged. Here are the rules I suggest.

1) Under 50kb file size for those with 56k modems.
2) Width must be 550 pixels or less, that's a little under the size of the space of GBATemp's length of a 800x600 screen.
3) Height must be 175 pixels or less, that should be plenty of room to do your thing.

Here's where it gets a little tricky though.

4) Don't make it 550x175, that's too big. Make it something like 500x100 or 300x175.

I hope all this makes sense. Can this be discussed at the next staff meeting?


----------



## Garp (Jan 12, 2004)

^ Thanks ol' buddy ol' pal. It's just another issue that needs to be ironed out once and for all here. The administrators and moderators of this place really have their work cut out for them, no doubt about it.


----------



## bladerx (Jan 12, 2004)

468 x 60 could be a more than adequated size, since that's the standard size for horizontal banners.


----------



## Ruth (Jan 12, 2004)

I don't think it would be a good idea to make the sig size smaller, after all the issue has been raised because people have sigs that are *larger* than 400 x 100...


----------



## Garp (Jan 12, 2004)

Exactly. Some sacrifices may have to be made by members for the good of the community, but I don't think sig size has to be one of those issues. It's worked up until now. The only question is whether or not they should be expanded in some way, shape, or form. I think making it less will tick off a LOT of graphics people for no reason whatsoever. 
We love you, graphics people!


----------



## PuyoDead (Jan 12, 2004)

I too side with the fact that the restrictions should be enforced no matter what the case, but, I think that maybe the limit should be expanded a bit. Perhaps enlarge it just a slight amount, like say, 450x120/65KB. I most certainly like the sigs Ronin has made, and I'm in no way saying they are bad, but they are a bit too large. Look at it this way, if any other new member came in, and had a sig that large, everyone would jump all over it. Granted, it may not be as good a quality, but still, it wouldn't go over very well. I would like to still see Ronin's (and anyone else who feels so inclined) work, and I'm sure he can still do something within a slightly larger format. Although in the end, this is all merely my views. Guess I'll just wait and see what the folks running this ship have to say.

On the other end of the spectrum, this is a forum, not an art gallery. Sure the user made sigs can be pretty nice, but when it all comes down to it, it's still just a signature on a forum. Sure, there are sections here that could be considered an art gallery, but those are specific topics, not additions to every one of someone's posts.


----------



## Darkforce (Jan 12, 2004)

QUOTE(Broken_by_Design @ Jan 12 2004 said:


> I don't think it would be a good idea to make the sig size smaller, after all the issue has been raised because people have sigs that are *larger* than 400 x 100...


If people can't obey to the current rules then who is to say they'll stick to the new rules. The people who are currently having sigs larger than 400x100 should obey the current rules like everyone else....personally I think it is pathetic that some of the most respected designers here, can't even stick to the rules ages after they have been enforced. The size of the sig is part of the specification, just like the file type, design etc... They might have great artistic talent, but when it comes to doing something simple like working within measurements they suck. I understand that they're apparently "recommended" measurements, but okay what if the rules are lessened even further, people will just start making sigs even larger. eg. If we allow 500x150, I bet people will start producing sigs nearer 200px in height. BTW on a 800x600 browser (well mine anyway if I put it on that) a sig 150px in height would take up almost a third of the page. The point is is that the current restrictions are fine as they are...anyone annoyed at the current rules then just go and work on your PS skills and learn to corporate the restrictions into your design.


----------



## ronin_in_tears (Jan 12, 2004)

As i will not attend in the upcoming staff meeting, i might aswell state my opinion now.

One of the reasons why i never chose to be an Webdesigner instead of an Multimedia producer was because of the size and resolution issues/restrictions, although i took HTML & Designer classes to make it easier to understand eachother when working as a team. In these classes i learned that the filesize is the vital part when constructing graphics for the web, as there still are modem users around the globe. Another important issue is not to work with a resolution higher than 72 or 96 as this is what the monitor uses. When it comes to width & height, try to keep it within the 800x600 standard, so that the user does not have to use the scrollbar just to reach the end of the sentence. 

Aslong as the members do not use screendump sizes as signatures i'm more than happy.

If you'd asked me, i'd adviced you to use a maximum width/height of 475x175 & a filesize @ 50kb

That should fit almost anything, without too much loss in detail. 

I'm aware of that my opinion means nothing, as i'm not the superior of this this forum, 
Kivan is and he's the one that ones stated the 400x100 rule. 

So i don't want to start a war just because i disagree, 
in a matter that's up to him and the supervisors to deal with.

Kind Regards

~ronin~


----------



## Inu268 (Jan 12, 2004)

i already said my opnion a thousand time but anyway,its up to kivan and the other admins to change that,but we are a community,and then your opnion ronin,like every1 else DOES matter,we are the users of this forum,and if you look at this topic,most member agree that the size(width x weight) is to small,and darkforce,no one would do sigs bigger than the new size limit(if we eventualy get a new size limit),because its already a good space to work,and if they do the signatures would simple be removed......and the filesize should 50k as every1 said....


----------



## KotaInka2 (Jan 13, 2004)

Puyodead and Darkforce: I'm responsible to Broken by Design for judging one of her contests, so I'll attempt to keep this brief, at least by my essay post standards. First of all, I'd like to say it is a bit disappointing that the person who had been here the longest, was also the most disrespectful of the two. Darkforce, I suggest you read what you wrote and think about it. Puyodead on the other hand, I admire your ability to see potential compromise when faced with a difficult issue, even though I think both of you are still missing the point.

Contrary to what you might believe about the mighty Kivan, he did not magically create this rule on his own. Instead, this "rule" was brought to Kivan's attention by some mods not that long ago, during one of Kivan's very rare and far more infrequent visits. He simply posted it and left. Since then, I believe the spirit of the rule has been lost and more importantly, may not have even been worded right in the first place. It is my understanding, as I've already said twice, that the actual size was meant to be strictly enforced to protect the dialup portion of the community, even though they have the ability to turn off avas/sigs. However, the other was intended as more of a guideline to prevent obnoxiously large sigs, which I've seen before, and certainly aren't mine or Ronin's. You may also notice that many mods are lining up against this portion of the rule as well, and it is they, who will ultimately decide it's fate, just as they helped implement it. This is extremely important, because as much as I want to see Kivan here leading the community, HE ISN'T! As such, the remaining ruling body has to grab the reigns and lead the charge, even if involves difficult decisions that might countermand what some may see as a decree. Besides, does anybody really think Kivan is going to kill them if a tough decision has been made in his absence, especially if it was made in the best interests of the community?



			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> if any other new member came in, and had a sig that large, everyone would jump all over it



If I had a good enough memory, I would track down each of the instances where I've told people with slightly larger than 400x100 sigs that it would be ok because the more important part, the kb size, was well within tolerance level. However, whenever I've seen someone breaking the kb size restriction, I've called them out on it, even if it made me look bad, because I felt it was for the good of the community. I did so with respect and certainly hope no ill feelings remain as I would do the same to my best friends in the community.

As I've said before, (perhaps I should add it to my 5 issues as a subcategory of my rules issue along with shaunj66 being made a full administrator) while some suggest a slight enlargement of the guideline, I think there really is no need to go beyond the 400x100 guideline if it is left up to the staff. The guideline can remain the same, so that people realize there is still a constraint to the size of their sigs and if they get ridiculous with it, the staff can come to a decision to remove it until the problem is corrected.

I hope that ronin rethinks his decision to sit out the next staff meeting. I feel he is respected and loved not only as an artist, but more importantly as a good human being, and has earned not only his global mod status, but also the right to be heard in that meeting.

So, my final statement in ronin's sig topic still stands. You can put it to a poll, do a dance, pass out fliers in the street, but I still await your decision.

*50KB=RULE
400x100=GUIDELINE*

Without further adieu, I depart to honor my obligation and pass judgement on three unfortunate souls.


----------



## Garp (Jan 13, 2004)

Amen, Kota. I'm with you on that statement 100% and a little bit more if possible. You summed up exactly what I was feeling. But anyway, very well put. Now let your fingers rest for a minute. lol

Edited to keep myself from looking like a total ass. Thanks KotaInka!


----------



## Darkforce (Jan 13, 2004)

*Tried to remain calm*... *sigh* kinda useless but at least it'll stop me repeating something offensive.

Anyway *fakes a smile* in response to your post KotaInka2, firstly prehaps you should re-read KiVans signature restriction rules:



			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> As requested by my staff , we are having new rules for signatures, starting from now 17 October 2003.
> 
> The max size allowed is now 400x100 Pixels and the filesize should not be more than 50k.
> 
> ...


.

Now what parts of the post suggest that the sizes are only a _recommendation_?...I'm still looking. Also notice the part "Please, everyone who has an irregular signature has few days to make it fit the limits." It has now been almost 3 months and we are still seeing people, like you, with sigs that disregard the rules.

So why complain about the dimensions of the sig? It doesn't effect loading times you say. However aesthetically it can cause quite a few problems, especially regards the height. Anyone who uses 800x600 will find that sig images like yours alone take up over a third of the viewable page, add several lines of text to the signature area (like yours) and it's more like two thirds....to put it simply is quite annoying for anyone to try and look at the forum on 800x600 (lolz especially at my school - no scroll wheels on mouses x_x).

Also going off slightly off topic but if the sig measurements were allowed to be bigger the average loading time for most sig images would increase to...okay so they would still be within the 50kb limit, but it's like encouraging people to make 56k'ers (like myself) lives a misery.


Personally I think everyone here should be grateful for the current size restrictions...I know many popular forums that simply don't allow sigs or avatars at all and or if so very restricted ones (eg. No avatar, sig 450'ish (can't remember exactly)x60px...yes 60px!). They even have PHP code to automatically disable the sig if it is any larger and before the code was in place Staff were PM'ing to change their images even if they were only 10px over the limit.

It just seems like too many people are taking everything for granted on here... come on seriously is it _that_ hard ronin (or anyone else that can use an imaging program for that matter) to make a sig that complies to the 400x100px restriction?


Finally people (especially Staff or people with high post counts etc..) regarding the rules in the loosest possible fashion hardly sets a good example for other members, especially new ones.


Well try to think about it.


----------



## KotaInka2 (Jan 13, 2004)

QUOTE(Darkforce @ Jan 13 2004 said:


> *Tried to remain calm*... *sigh* kinda useless but at least it'll stop me repeating something offensive.
> 
> Anyway *fakes a smile* in response to your post KotaInka2, firstly prehaps you should re-read KiVans signature restriction rules:
> 
> ...


:: Respectfully shows Darkforce a real smile-- =O) ::

I've said my piece already. You've said yours. The mods will take over from here.

Have a nice day!


----------



## Darkforce (Jan 13, 2004)

Lol, you to Kota.


----------

