Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As a followup to my original thread on image signature policy ideas, (found here), I was curious as to how people felt specifically about signature options. I've tried to include everything suggested in the other thread, with the exception of things that are not technically possible or would take to much effort to implement. Again, I'm not planning to do anything yet, if at all, I just want to see how the community feels about it. Lurkers are free and encouraged to vote, so even if you are not registered then please let your opinion be known.

Option 1:
Block all signatures (including text) by default

Option 2:
Disable all signatures (including text) by default but allow people (excluding anonymous guest users) to set an option in their profile to view them again.

Option 3:
Block all images in signatures by default (allowing text though)

Option 4:
Block all images in signatures as default policy, allowing text, BUT allow people (except anonymous guest users) to set an option in their profile to see images in sigs.

Option 5:
Allow images in signatures as default policy, BUT allow people (excluding anonymous guest users) to set an option in their profile to block images in sigs.

Option 6:
Allow images and text, but forcibly restrict all signatures to this size:

cropping anything larger (both height and width). Signatures can still be disabled by registered members.

Option 7:
No change to existing signature rules

Note 'all images' would NOT include the dakka orkmoticons/army icons.

Opt. 2. If you wanna see them, fine. If not, don't.

I'm torn between option 6 and option 5.

But even if option 6 is chosen, you should still have the option to disable images in sigs.

Hordini wrote:I'm torn between option 6 and option 5.

But even if option 6 is chosen, you should still have the option to disable images in sigs.

Clarification added.

I voted for Option 6. I like the set sig size as it lends to a better flow of the thread, reducing the distraction to the eye of the various sigs. Plus I feel that giving folks a set boundary to work in generally inspires them to be more creative in what they put in it.

SFG

I agree. I vote for 6.

So many users are on broadband now that download time isn't a major factor anymore. It's more an aesthetic thing.

I like 6.

On a related note to setting the size... The WotC boards have the option to turn off sigs, or to choose how much of them to display.

So users can set their sigs as long as they want, but for those who edit their account settings to display only a set amount of sig length, it displays the sig with a scroll bar instead of the whole thing.

I voted 5 but 6 is still a really good call

Is there any specific need to limit the signature image width to 300px? Specifically, I'm concerned for my own signature image. IMHO, 400x60 is neither large or obtrusive, and I'm hoping it will not be impacted by the upcoming changes.

100 pixels high is pretty much the minimum size that can still show a few lines of text without disrupting the flow of conversation too much. 300 wide makes a nice block that even with the most obnoxious looking images would still be tolerable and consistent. However, the dakka code chunks would not fit into this, and neither would long URLs, so something between 300-400 pixels wide is most probable, it would be examined in detail before any changes are made (if they are made).

Number 6 is the best choice. It is the version I see in most forums I frequent and works pretty well.

Honestly, I don't care. I use FireFox and AdBlocker. If I think that somebody's sig is annoying (or much more often their animated avatar) I just select the offending image, right click, and bye-bye annoyance.

My vote goes to 5; I think 6 goes too far.
If I would have a picture in my sig, I would prefer using a low, but longer pic, something like Le Grognard has. It's a nice pic, which clearly shows which army he plays, I can see a lot, but it's not too big.

Option 6 is good because even text can get to large. Plus you still have the option to disable sigs in your user control panel. It's kind of the best of both worlds.

BigToof wrote:Honestly, I don't care. I use FireFox and AdBlocker. If I think that somebody's sig is annoying (or much more often their animated avatar) I just select the offending image, right click, and bye-bye annoyance.

thanks for pointing that out. I'm just gonig to do that from now on.

I voted 6 but I think it should be a mix of 6 and 5.

[edit] nevermind read the clarification. I stick with 6 [/edit]

I really dislike the size-restriction option IF it adds a scrollbar into people's sig. I use the mouse-wheel for scrolling, and having scrollable areas inside the page steals the mouse focus and you have to scroll through the whole sig when you hit one.

Not good.

insaniak wrote:I like 6.

On a related note to setting the size... The WotC boards have the option to turn off sigs, or to choose how much of them to display.

So users can set their sigs as long as they want, but for those who edit their account settings to display only a set amount of sig length, it displays the sig with a scroll bar instead of the whole thing.

I suggested this and brought it up in the other thread while giving an example, no one commented one way or the other though. Still I'm glad someone else brought it up even if I had nothing to do with it =)

Option five. If people can't handle my signature let them run from it.

Option 2.. turn it all off by default and let me determine what I want to see..

Redbeard wrote: I use the mouse-wheel for scrolling, and having scrollable areas inside the page steals the mouse focus and you have to scroll through the whole sig when you hit one.

While I actually find the same thing a little irritating, you don't actually have to scroll all the way through. Just click to the left of the sig if you get stuck in it. Or get into the habit of leaving your mouse pointer off to one side rather than in the middle of the page.

I don't think the WotC solution is the most elegant way of doing it, but thought it was worth suggesting, simply because it is another opiton.

Isn't Option 6 essentially the status quo?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Isn't Option 6 essentially the status quo?

No, sigs can be 150 pixels high and unlimited width right now. They are only auto-cropped in browsers other than IE right now too.

So the difference in 6 (compared to today) is that it crops width?

crops width and is 50% less height

Oh, OK. Thanks for clarifying.

I think I'm OK either way, as I don't get cropped.

I voted for 5, but 6 is a pretty good option as well. While I enjoy sigs as a way to relate with a user's personality, particularly large sigs are annoying - especially when the sig is considerably larger than the post the user enters!

Option 7. Sigs are not a problem here. I don't see what the big deal is.

I voted option 6, mostly because I would rather images were forced to be 100 pixels high, not 150. I would rather text in sigs was not restricted by width, and images had a larger maximum width than 300.

Combo of 5 and 6 for me. I like the size (though maybe slightly wider for that more 'banner' feel).