To picture or to not picture
Re: To picture or to not picture
Many forums allow you to not view images, but the links to that image (ie. where it is hosted and what not). So, Kost, if banners were allowed, maybe they would let you/similiar people just view links instead of images.
~~~~~~~
Useful Links
The Tale of Drakfot--Ballistic Mystix--Ryzom Database--Ryzom Lore--The Sanctuary--Ryzom Acronyms--Ryzom Ranger--Ryzom Wiki--Ryzom Movies--Sunswing (Ema's Videos)
Re: To picture or to not picture
hehe - I'd go with that toobluefve wrote:But on the note of the topic, I'll take my stand where everyone else seems to. They don't particularly bother me as long as its in a controlled environment.
Jayce - Right-click is your friend in this world.
Master Forest Forager | Master Prime Roots Forager |Expert Lakeland Forager @ Q250
Master Jeweler|Master Heavy Range Weaponsmith
Master Jeweler|Master Heavy Range Weaponsmith
[ Leader | Reapers of the Dark ]
[ Matis Noble | Karavaneer | Wayfarer | Arispotle ]
[ Gear Requirements | Server Status | Acronyms | Atys Time | Fireworks ]
[ Matis Noble | Karavaneer | Wayfarer | Arispotle ]
[ Gear Requirements | Server Status | Acronyms | Atys Time | Fireworks ]
Re: To picture or to not picture
Please $deity NO. Images in sig files makes my adblock file scream in pain.
Re: To picture or to not picture
My thoughts (nothing new below, just sharing my view),
The avatar on the left is already a means to personalize / sign / add an image to your posts. In general, I tend to think that a simple text-based signature is, imho, good enough to add what you want.
With almost everyone using somekind of broadband access and the local browser caches, the bandwidth is less of a problem as it used to be. Still, I think too large signatures take too much state space, can be plain ugly or show a "particular" taste for color combinations or, as noted may trigger adblocks.
True, there are nice signatures, but it tends to get abused: there are lots of forums and forum posts where the signatures are almost always bigger than the post itself. There are forums where signatures are so large that they have their own scroll bars and it becomes a pain to scroll down the thread.
In short, I'd rather stay with text based signatures, and I'd even add the option to limit their size (I think 3-4 html text lines is ok).
In any case, I am not against "free-form" signatures if that's what players want, as long as they can be disabled, but this means I may miss interesting sig info when/if I disable them all.
The avatar on the left is already a means to personalize / sign / add an image to your posts. In general, I tend to think that a simple text-based signature is, imho, good enough to add what you want.
With almost everyone using somekind of broadband access and the local browser caches, the bandwidth is less of a problem as it used to be. Still, I think too large signatures take too much state space, can be plain ugly or show a "particular" taste for color combinations or, as noted may trigger adblocks.
True, there are nice signatures, but it tends to get abused: there are lots of forums and forum posts where the signatures are almost always bigger than the post itself. There are forums where signatures are so large that they have their own scroll bars and it becomes a pain to scroll down the thread.
In short, I'd rather stay with text based signatures, and I'd even add the option to limit their size (I think 3-4 html text lines is ok).
In any case, I am not against "free-form" signatures if that's what players want, as long as they can be disabled, but this means I may miss interesting sig info when/if I disable them all.
Anissa - Jena's Lost Tribe -
Re: To picture or to not picture
Going with yes and no.
I love making signature files/images. What I don't like is anything over 125 height, and of anything over 400'ish width. I used to participate on a forum where people would pop up a 600x800 image and call it a 'signature'. ...those people got banned from the forums I moderated if they did not take me up on my offer to make them a new signature for free.
I love making signature files/images. What I don't like is anything over 125 height, and of anything over 400'ish width. I used to participate on a forum where people would pop up a 600x800 image and call it a 'signature'. ...those people got banned from the forums I moderated if they did not take me up on my offer to make them a new signature for free.
Jeziellia Mara'tyr
Officer, House Etchmarc, Arispotle
Better by far you should forget and smile than you should remember and be sad.
Christina Rossetti (1830 - 1894)
[size=-2]OOC: Jeziellia's Journal is OOC knowledge only. Possibilities of reading it IC should be brought to me for discussion. Thank you![/size]
Officer, House Etchmarc, Arispotle
Better by far you should forget and smile than you should remember and be sad.
Christina Rossetti (1830 - 1894)
[size=-2]OOC: Jeziellia's Journal is OOC knowledge only. Possibilities of reading it IC should be brought to me for discussion. Thank you![/size]
Re: To picture or to not picture
Yes.jennaelf wrote:Going with yes and no.
I love making signature files/images. What I don't like is anything over 125 height, and of anything over 400'ish width. I used to participate on a forum where people would pop up a 600x800 image and call it a 'signature'. ...those people got banned from the forums I moderated if they did not take me up on my offer to make them a new signature for free.
It is something very creative and don't gimme the comment you can make them for you. A artist is to share his/hers work after all.Jez got the point in my book.
Re: To picture or to not picture
Please can this thread be closed. If people want to start the convo over that's fine, I'm not against talking about it. But the poll is way out of date as it was done 2 years ago originally.
Re: To picture or to not picture
I am locking this thread as requested by the initial poster.