Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

parallax · May 19, 2002, 12:55 PM

We're close to being done with UBB 6.3 hacking. Yesterday I added stars and a few things; today it'll pretty much be done.

Currently we're debating one thing: sig images or avatars?

Avatars are 50x50 icons to the side of the post in the info area, while sig images are of course the images you have in your sig.

They're mutually exclusive, so please choose one or the other!

voodoo · May 19, 2002, 12:57 PM

Sigs PLEASE, by the name of all that is holy don't make us have the Avatars! Eeeeew.

parallax · May 19, 2002, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by voodoo:
Sigs PLEASE, by the name of all that is holy don't make us have the Avatars! Eeeeew.

I prefer sigs myself...

scaught · May 19, 2002, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by voodoo:
Sigs PLEASE, by the name of all that is holy don't make us have the Avatars! Eeeeew.

agreed. avatars are so... so... juvenile or something.

voodoo · May 19, 2002, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by parallax:


I prefer sigs myself...

that's a relief!

I think most people here are fond of their sigs as well. Right, everybody?

<voodoo looks around himself at the stunned faces of MacNN Forum members>

Norm1985 · May 19, 2002, 01:08 PM

Signatures, for the love of God.

parallax · May 19, 2002, 01:10 PM

Alright, gzl, whatcha gonna say now? Sigs it will be unless there's some sort of avatar contingent waiting to spring out in a few hours.

I agree, Avatars are very juvenile. Especially animated ones. *shudder*

Cellery · May 19, 2002, 01:21 PM

Yeah, sigs are great, down with avatars! MacNN seems much classier without the cheesy avatars, have a look at some bad avatar and sig abuse!

ReggieX · May 19, 2002, 01:25 PM

No avatar no avatar no avatar hey!

Ca$h68 · May 19, 2002, 01:27 PM

Sigs.

Paco500 · May 19, 2002, 01:34 PM

It think it's a foregone conclusion, buy I'm casting my lots w/ sigs as well.

Paco[/LIST]

Footy · May 19, 2002, 01:35 PM

SIgs please! I just bought my $100 dollar sig creator.

Photoshop Elements.

[ 05-19-2002: Message edited by: Footy ]

davidflas · May 19, 2002, 01:44 PM

sigs!

ajprice · May 19, 2002, 01:58 PM

Gimme an S, Gimme an I, Gimme a G, Gimme an S, what do you get?

Sigs Please

but with better rules.

I mean, 40 pixels high is ok, I understand that because of scrolling. But why 140 pixels wide? Somebody explain this one, or do the mods all use 9" screen Classics running their browser with the sidebar open? Is 300, 400, or even 500 pixels wide going to hurt? And yes it should be possible to get under 10k with that. This here sig of mine is 4k/2600 bytes (thats what Get Info says). Animation, grey area, Cellery's Futurama ones are great, but things could get tasteless if they were freely allowed. So maybe a guideline of 'subtle' animation, and a bit of self regulation on the part of the MacNN member?.

snomac · May 19, 2002, 02:04 PM

Some signature graphics are out of control, and even worse when used multiple times in the same thread. There's many that are out of the 140 x 40 compliance, but for example this one is over 4 times the height restriction.

Adam Betts · May 19, 2002, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by parallax:
We're close to being done with UBB 6.3 hacking. Yesterday I added stars and a few things; today it'll pretty much be done.

Could you tell us what's new in UBB 6.3?

BTW, Sigs is better.

dillerX · May 19, 2002, 02:46 PM

Yes, Sigs.

Millennium · May 19, 2002, 03:03 PM

Allow me to cast my vote for sigs. More flexibility.

IUJHJSDHE · May 19, 2002, 03:32 PM

Sigs

cdhostage · May 19, 2002, 03:40 PM

Sigs, baby/

Earth Mk. II · May 19, 2002, 03:45 PM

incase the first 17 times didn't count... sigs.

ringo · May 19, 2002, 03:53 PM

Sigs good, avatars bad, hulk angry

wataru · May 19, 2002, 03:57 PM

Most definitely sigs.

parallax · May 19, 2002, 04:13 PM

It's close, but I guess we're going with sigs. Heh, phew. No cheesy avatars!

agentz · May 19, 2002, 04:22 PM

I've just gotten back from dinner and I'd like to cast my vote for sigs,but for gods sake can we have much tighter policing of the guidelines please? Especially the no animation one - they are really distracting, no matter how subtle they are (sorry Adam Betts and Cellery). We should have one set of guidelines for all use of sigs, not one set of rules for some and apparantly different rules for others.

If people can't self regulate then I think the admins should move to Avatars at some point in the future as these are pretty self controlling.

[ 05-19-2002: Message edited by: agentz ]

theolein · May 19, 2002, 05:46 PM

I prefer SIG's,

They, uhm, sort of have more ammunition than avatars

Amorya · May 19, 2002, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by parallax:
We're close to being done with UBB 6.3 hacking. Yesterday I added stars and a few things; today it'll pretty much be done.

Currently we're debating one thing: sig images or avatars?

Avatars are 50x50 icons to the side of the post in the info area, while sig images are of course the images you have in your sig.

They're mutually exclusive, so please choose one or the other!

Yeah, definitely sigs here. Perhaps modify the board, so that it can use the avatar size checking algorithm with sig images? Maybe turn the IMG tag off for sigs, but have a separate field for sig image (appears before the sig text), and set it to check the size there.

Amorya

Norm1985 · May 19, 2002, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by snomac:
Some signature graphics are out of control, and even worse when used multiple times in the same thread. There's many that are out of the 140 x 40 compliance, but for example this one is over 4 times the height restriction.

Yours is 142x42, I wouldn't be talking. (at least about those out of the 140x40 compliance)

Try right clicking on your signature image and select 'Open image in new window' Then, if your using IE and probably many other major browsers you'll see it saying 'snomacsig.gif 142x42 pixels'

[ 05-19-2002: Message edited by: Norm1985 ]

snomac · May 19, 2002, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Norm1985:


Yours is 142x42, I wouldn't be talking. (at least about those out of the 140x40 compliance)

Try right clicking on your signature image and select 'Open image in new window' Then, if your using IE and probably many other major browsers you'll see it saying 'snomacsig.gif 142x42 pixels'

[ 05-19-2002: Message edited by: Norm1985 ]

Oops, looks like the border pushed it over by 2 pixels in each direction. Thanks for the heads up. In any case, it's not 120+ pixels over, which was the point I was trying to make.

Bockie · May 19, 2002, 10:20 PM

Signature image, please.

nealconner · May 19, 2002, 10:24 PM

Er.... signatures.

RGB · May 19, 2002, 10:26 PM

Well, since every vote counts, sigs all the way! (no hanging chad here)

fourstarcltv · May 20, 2002, 03:27 AM

Originally posted by parallax:
They're mutually exclusive, so please choose one or the other!

i'd much prefer signatures.

Face Ache · May 20, 2002, 03:47 AM

Sigs. Also, how do I get some of those black stars to match my black, black heart?

Synotic · May 20, 2002, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Amorya:


Yeah, definitely sigs here. Perhaps modify the board, so that it can use the avatar size checking algorithm with sig images? Maybe turn the IMG tag off for sigs, but have a separate field for sig image (appears before the sig text), and set it to check the size there.

Amorya

I don't believe there was an algorithm so to speak. It just set the width and height to 50 and 50 respectively. I also think that a few pixels off is always OK.. no? Just no abusing... my sig is a couple pixels off.. but eh, no complaints.

anyways...

AVATARS!!!
(hopes loud yelling counts for many more votes...)

...
...
...
...

jk

sigs of course

tinrib · May 20, 2002, 11:05 AM

sigs

chris v · May 20, 2002, 11:42 AM

Cigs, please. I'll take a pack of Camel filters.

Oh, what was the question? I was in a band called Avatar when I was in high school, and the word brings back bad memories.

Sigs, please. Looks unanimous.

CV

Jansar · May 20, 2002, 01:47 PM

Avatars!

(I'm such a rebel, aren't I?)

Shaktai · May 20, 2002, 02:50 PM

Sigs definitely.

Mac Zealot · May 20, 2002, 03:23 PM

Definately sigs.

(and I just got mine to look cool too!)

agentz · May 20, 2002, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
Definately sigs.

(and I just got mine to look cool too!)

Yeah you might have got it to look cool but your server (talesmud) is broke Mr Cranmer

SkiBikeSki · May 20, 2002, 09:57 PM

Sigs! Over the past years so many people have put time and effort into producing their sigs, It'd be a shame to switch to anything else. And let's not forget how good the team logo looks in a sig.

OwlBoy · May 20, 2002, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Cellery:
Yeah, sigs are great, down with avatars! MacNN seems much classier without the cheesy avatars, have a look at some bad avatar and sig abuse!

hehe I love useing that forum as an example hehe.

-Owl

SteevAK · May 21, 2002, 02:52 AM

Sigs.

vsurfer · Jun 10, 2002, 08:20 PM

sigs || bust;

voodoo · Jun 10, 2002, 08:22 PM

Wow. That was necessary.

Moonray · Jun 10, 2002, 10:29 PM

Ehrmmmm... sigs please

(Space below for rent

)
--

Timo · Jun 11, 2002, 11:10 PM

signatures with ligatures.

Cipher13 · Jun 12, 2002, 05:01 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ajprice:
Gimme an S, Gimme an I, Gimme a G, Gimme an S, what do you get?

Sigs Please

but with better rules.

I mean, 40 pixels high is ok, I understand that because of scrolling. But why 140 pixels wide? Somebody explain this one, or do the mods all use 9" screen Classics running their browser with the sidebar open? Is 300, 400, or even 500 pixels wide going to hurt? And yes it should be possible to get under 10k with that. This here sig of mine is 4k/2600 bytes (thats what Get Info says). Animation, grey area, Cellery's Futurama ones are great, but things could get tasteless if they were freely allowed. So maybe a guideline of 'subtle' animation, and a bit of self regulation on the part of the MacNN member?.<hr /></blockquote>No. Self regulation? Won't happen among some.

And anyway, who wants to even try loading a 50-reply thread with 50 500 pixel wide sig images each animating, in any browser on OSX? You're kidding, right?