Signature Size Rules

Fr0dders

Fr0dders

Fr0dders

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,465
Location
West Yorks
Those of us who have been around a while, can be identified by our join date - October 2002

Back in October 2002, an 80gb Maxtor hard drive cost £90 at over clockers. Or if you were particularly rich, you might be able to afford a 160gb Drive which cost £190 !!!

Back then, only the most rich will have been reading the forums on 17 inch LCD monitors with a resolution of 1280 x 1024 that cost £400 !!!

Back then, only a select few will have had ADSL internet with the dizzy speeds of 512kb Down and 256kb upload. Lots will have been using 56k modems still.

Technology has moved on a lot in the 11 years since we wiped the OcUK forum database and started all again.

Is it not time to re-think whether we should allow a slight relaxation in the rules on file sizes at least ? Maybe 100kb instead of the measly 20kb we get now ?

The face of computing has changed massively in the last 11 years, but our rules haven't changed a dot. And anybody who is still reading this forums on the same hardware and connection they were 11 years ago, can always turn signatures off or reduce the page per post count so it loads less data ..

Whaddya think ?
 
Dimensions are fine as it helps reduce clutter, I do however agree that the filesize restrictions should be relaxed a little.

Even 40KB would be much better as the compromise on image quality for 20Kb even on a palette restricted GIF image is a little too much.
 
With more and more users browsing forums with mobile internet/limited connections I'm still in favour of keeping files like signatures as small as possible. Users around here seem to change their nicks more than their signatures which is why I still have them on.
 
I don't have a sig and I have sigs turned off, so it makes no difference as far as I'm concerned. If you're browsing the site mainly on mobile then I'd suggest switching sigs off in your preferences.
 
Moses said:
They could just turn off sigs...
Click to expand...

Or people could just live with a 20kb signature size and that means people on data plans don't suffer from having to download a lot more data for it. I'm just pointing out the argument can be flipped very easily there, not that it's necessarily right or wrong.

For what it's worth I like the fact that the both the physical size and the file size are limited because it does give a certain amount of uniformity not having large sprawling signatures all over and small file sizes mean that you're not having to download lots of data. I'm quite impressed by the variety and creativity that people have managed to fit into the restrictions. The question of changing signature sizes has come up a few times and I wouldn't have thought a change was particularly likely given past precedent.

However with that said I'll flag the topic up so that a discussion can be had.
 
I feel the 20kb is perfectly adequate and it needn't be ever more. Not only is there an increased usage in mobile visits, there are also still plenty of people on sucky connections who don't need the extra stuffing however small.
 
the sig size is great and one of the reasons to read ocuk. Some sites let all go and you have a one word reply with a sig taking up 1/2 the page.

Even OCUK ads at the top are small as well.

I say leave alone but there again I'm not a sig creator.
 
Personally using 1 browser and in windows my Sig was 18kb but it was 22kb in a mods so it was removed. I even got it from the create a Sig thread!

A slight increase - 40 or 50kb would be good. To those who browse these forums on mobile data is that really going to affect your plan? if so then turn them off imho.

**edit** Pixel size should remain.
 
MrLOL said:
Is it not time to re-think whether we should allow a slight relaxation in the rules on file sizes at least ? Maybe 100kb instead of the measly 20kb we get now ?
Click to expand...

No :p

I have sigs turned off anyway so it makes no difference to me but I see no reason to change the rules.
 
MrLOL said:
Is it not time to re-think whether we should allow a slight relaxation in the rules on file sizes at least ? Maybe 100kb instead of the measly 20kb we get now ?
Click to expand...
No.

Firstly at home I read on a 1024x768 monitor that I have no intention of changing because there's nothing wrong with it. Second, pages load in the click of a finger rather than having to wait ages for everyone's ridiculously large sigs to load. Thirdly, I can make a MASSIVE image in photoshop with 100kb that takes up my whole viewing area, so why would a sig even double or quadruple the current pixel count need to be that big?

There is simply NO NEED for huge sigs; they just clutter forum pages up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom