Question

[Shinigami]

are we allowed to use image signatures?

[Mojinr]

Appearently, no.

[Elethiomel]

I don't think so, and even if we could, I wouldn't because personally I find them annoying.

[Kusoyaro]

anyone know when html and java and shit will be enabled?

[Elethiomel]

Of course, you could use the text-to-image extention for Firefox to make image links in sigs like Mojinr's appear as the image in the link.

[Henjin]

Yeah, uh, let's not enable HTML and java please...

[ChronoSphere]

No Java.... we don't need massive attacks on our comps.

[Shinigami]

HTML and java are a horrible idea, though it would be nice to have image sigs.

[Pierrot le Fou]

My God, what has happened to the simpler the better?

There's absolutely no need for big-ass sigs with images. There's even less of a need for java or HTML. BBCode works fine for just 'bout anything. If you want to make a Java or HTML something, just make it an attachment and allow people to download it.

Sweet Jesus.

[Henjin]

You'd think the giant avatars we can have would be enough as well. On forums where I do have a sig, I always disable it after the first post... But hardly everyone does that, and it gets distracting. Things are fine just the way they are.

[mediocre]

The old forum was complete trash in regards to people's signatures. It becomes highly annoying to see people's 8 picture signature longer than most of the messages in a thread.

[Pierrot le Fou]

This is why I have both avatars, and signatures, as well as inlined images, disabled. That way no thread gets cluttered up with anything while I read, and it's just nice and dandy.

Avatars also make the forum looks less work-related than pure text. The big-ass animated avatars some people use, and the semi-questionable avatars some people use, drive me absolutely bonkers.

[MeneerDijk]

I'm not sure if Az left it out on purpose, but thank john belushi there's no images in the signature. Remember that GI-owned board that was linked to a couple of days ago? where every post had an image of a car, girlfriend, tv-series and an animated thingy and heaps of tekst and scrolling texts containing technical specs? now that was horrible! I agree with Pierrot here, when it comes to forums, simpler is better.

[mediocre]

I browse forums by avatars; I see an avatar I recognize, chances are the post is worth reading. I see an annoying avatar, I keep scrolling. Laziness at work!

[Saitou Hajime]

Az did it on purpose.

[PopCulturePooka]

Allowing image sigs, or java and html sigs here would be like allowing depressed gothic geek high school students access to guns.

[Praetorian]

I think image sicks are fine if there's a limit. If you don't like them, disable them in UserCP so you don't have to see them. Let others have their fun.

[PopCulturePooka]

Like avatars, sig pics should have strict limits.

Eg a standard banner, 468 x 60, with appropriate file size, should work ok.

[Praetorian]

Standard signature image is about 500x120.

[PopCulturePooka]

Standard signature image is about 500x120.
Aye, but banner size is much more streamlined.

[Arctic_Slicer]

I don't mind image sigs too much so long as they are not too big and so long as they don't have animations. It's the animated ones that are annoying as it gets really hard to read the threads with the constant movement. I think not allowing them at all is probabally the best solution though. Allows for alot cleaner look so people will focus on the discussion and conversation instead of the images.

[tekkan]

The rule of thumb is, if your response to the thread is smaller than your signature, then your not saying anything worth saying.


Thats why I have no signature :P

[Citizen]

An avatar and text signature that you can stick links in are more than enough.

If you can't express yourself with that much, then too bad. Most people don't give a damn about what you stick in your sig. anyways. This isn't some low-rent little anime board where we all sit around orgasming over who can put the biggest Inuyasha picture in their sig. anyways.