Forums - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

03-02-2005 06:46 PM

Wired

Sure, but why would you wan't to spew out 1000+ word at the end of every post anyway?

03-02-2005 06:33 PM

JJXB

1 picture can say more than 1000 words ever could. like this

03-02-2005 06:18 PM

Wired

I can't understand how anyone can get worked up about sigs? They are completely useless, and that's a fact.

22-01-2005 07:01 PM

Maikel

haha, poor jjxb

take a beer on me!

22-01-2005 02:29 PM

JJXB

ffs, i gave up trying to get the rules changed because no admin would see a reasonable change in this ages back, what makes anyone else think they can do it?? whats the point in trying to point out some reasonable boundaries when they won't be accepted??? thats the one thing that frustrates me most about this board.

22-01-2005 12:38 PM

xoopx

Quote:

Originally posted by mouse31e+Jan 22 2005, 01:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mouse31e @ Jan 22 2005, 01:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-xoopx@Jan 22 2005, 12:29 PM
why on earth would they let the height be up to 100, and the width 500 but not at the same time? the height=100 version already takes up 100 pixels of someones page, so shortening the width is completely pointless.

But a 100x500 pixel image is 50000 pixels while a 100x100 pixel image is only 10000 as is a 20x500 pixel image. The difference in filesize and loading time would be fairly significant though, as you say, visually it would make very little difference! [/b][/quote]
thats true, but they could still set a maximum filesize, and if people could fit one into that size (png-8 format maybe?) then it would be all good.

for me, as long as a banner doesnt make the horizontal scrollbar appear at 1024x768, im not bothered. its the HEIGHT thats all important. too high and its too intrusive and also means people have to scroll more.

22-01-2005 12:02 PM

mouse31e

Quote:

Originally posted by xoopx@Jan 22 2005, 12:29 PM
why on earth would they let the height be up to 100, and the width 500 but not at the same time? the height=100 version already takes up 100 pixels of someones page, so shortening the width is completely pointless.

22-01-2005 11:53 AM

JJXB

authsor, don't bother trying to get them to change the signature rules, i tried VERY HARD and they did not budge (even though my suggestions were reasonable) so i don't see a damn thing in hell you'll ever be able do to get the rules changed.

22-01-2005 11:45 AM

auhsor

Meh, it looks like overkill, but it's nice, and it works quite well, and I havn't seen any complaints there.

22-01-2005 11:29 AM

xoopx

Quote:

Originally posted by auhsor@Jan 22 2005, 12:16 PM
Just for some input about sig pic sizes, I have found this forum's guidelines for signatures to be very good. We might be able to implement something like this and keep everyone happy?

LOL at that crazy forums huge essay on dimensions. some people have WAY too much free time.
why on earth would they let the height be up to 100, and the width 500 but not at the same time? the height=100 version already takes up 100 pixels of someones page, so shortening the width is completely pointless.

This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off