Images in signatures

You must be logged in to reply

  Search thread   Image gallery
1 of 3 2 3 »
DavidB - Moderator Site Admin

Location: Canberra
Some concern has been raised that the images in some signatures are getting larger and larger, and these are taking time to load for people on dialup connections.

The Management has decided that, as of 1st February 2004, images in signatures should be no higher than 75 pixels and the file size should be no more than 12kb. There is no restriction on width.

The little train GIFs in sigs are fine. You can string as many together as you like, provided the combined size is no more than 12kb.

Cheers
David
 
mars Chief Commissioner

Location: Rail SA
Some concern has been raised that the images in some signatures are getting larger and larger, and these are taking time to load for people on dialup connections.

The Management has decided that, as of 1st February 2004, images in signatures should be no higher than 75 pixels and the file size should be no more than 12kb. There is no restriction on width.

The little train GIFs in sigs are fine. You can string as many together as you like, provided the combined size is no more than 12kb.

Cheers
David
- DavidB


is my signature alright?
 
duttonbay Minister for Railways

The Management has decided that, as of 1st February 2004, images in signatures should be no higher than 75 pixels and the file size should be no more than 12kb. There is no restriction on width.
- DavidB


is my signature alright?
- mars


The vertical dimension is 125 pixels, so to fit in with the guidelines it eill ned to be reduced to 60% of its height.  

While we are at it, I reckon we should limit the size of images in posts too.  Some of them recently have been 2000 pixels wide - not too many screens can see all of that image in one go.
 
michaelgreenhill - Administrator That's Numberwang!

Location: Melbourne
Why not just put the restriction at the common web banner size?
 
standard_gauge Dr Beeching

Location: Outside the toilet, waiting for Della Bosca to come out !!
How's mine then? I am not sure the size of mine
 
K163 Chief Commissioner

Location: Well you see that house over there? Well it's not that one.
How's mine then? I am not sure the size of mine
- Jam>s C/
Your's is about 100 pixels too high (its 600 x 225)
 
zipitidoodah Chief Commissioner

For some of us who only have 800x600 screen resolution (sorry, laptops can't grow extra pixels!) wide pictures are highly inconvenient. Signature pictures aren't a problem (yet) but pictures that some people post on the forums are a screen and a half wide. Whilst this might be OK for resolutions like 1024x768, on 800x600 it means I (and others) have to scroll across to view the whole picture. I don't mind scrolling for the picture, but I do mind having to scroll back and forwards to read every single sentence on the same page.

When posting, I think image size should be considered in terms of its screen dimensions and file size. By all means, post images, but consider the size and number of them before you do. If it's going to be too big or you don't know how to make them smaller, then just provide a link to the website so if people would like to see them they can do so themselves.

(PS. I'm not a moderator - these are just my own thoughts!)
 
Nexas The Ghost of George Stephenson

I already know mines 200px tall... but it's only temporary as i'm getting one thats 46px tall as soon as I get a file hosting site

I'll take the pic off on Feb 1st if I can't get file hosting site by then.
 
standard_gauge Dr Beeching

Location: Outside the toilet, waiting for Della Bosca to come out !!
How's mine then? I am not sure the size of mine
- Jam>s C/
Your's is about 100 pixels too high (its 600 x 225)
- K163


hmmmmm I really like my signiture image..... Confused
 
agentmeh Assistant Commissioner

The Management has decided that, as of 1st February 2004, images in signatures should be no higher than 75 pixels and the file size should be no more than 12kb. There is no restriction on width.
- DavidB


is my signature alright?
- mars


The vertical dimension is 125 pixels, so to fit in with the guidelines it eill ned to be reduced to 60% of its height.  

While we are at it, I reckon we should limit the size of images in posts too.  Some of them recently have been 2000 pixels wide - not too many screens can see all of that image in one go.
- duttonbay


Why not instead of banning large images in posts, request that users put a disclaimer in their post stating that pictures are large? (e.g. [Contains Large Image]). Limiting the size of content does not make it fair on people who put out large amounts of money for broadband connections for the purpose of being able to download a large amount of data in a small amount of time.
 
joffie Chief Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
great idea having a rule on the banners.
how about 75 upward and 430
 
michaelgreenhill - Administrator That's Numberwang!

Location: Melbourne
Therefore creating a whole new set of dimensions to go by. What is wrong with using the standard web banner size of 468*60 pixels?
 
duttonbay Minister for Railways

While we are at it, I reckon we should limit the size of images in posts too.  Some of them recently have been 2000 pixels wide - not too many screens can see all of that image in one go.
- duttonbay


Why not instead of banning large images in posts, request that users put a disclaimer in their post stating that pictures are large? (e.g. [Contains Large Image]). Limiting the size of content does not make it fair on people who put out large amounts of money for broadband connections for the purpose of being able to download a large amount of data in a small amount of time.
- agentmeh


A disclaimer is not much use, because the images are inline and appear with (although somewhat slower than) the text.

It's not the bandwidth, it's just very inconvenient having an image in a posting which cannot even be displayed on a screen without scrolling.   Not only that, the wide image makes the whole topic wide, requiring sideways scrolling just to read the messages.

If people limited images to what could be seen on a normal screen (I would be happy with 1024 max but others might prefer 800 pixels wide) then you could see the whole photo at once - and that's a much better presentation of the images.
 
SAR T186 Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting for the next train to Seaford S.A
zipitidoodah Wrote:
For some of us who only have 800x600 screen resolution (sorry, laptops can't grow extra pixels!)

Hmm my laptop can, actaully be set upto 1920x1600 pixels which i use all the time:) so i have no problems with picture no matter what size.
 
duttonbay Minister for Railways

zipitidoodah Wrote:
my laptop can, actaully be set upto 1920x1600 pixels which i use all the time:) so i have no problems with picture no matter what size.
- SAR T186

Except that there is maybe 200 pixels on the left hand side of the screen used for the poster's information, plus the borders around the various bits of the page, meaning you probably only have 1750 pixels available for an image.  I am certain there were some posted in the last few days which were indeed 2000 pixels wide - so even with your wonderful sounding laptop, you would still have to scroll to see all of the image.
 
mjja Sir Nigel Gresley

Location: Mount Waverley, Melbourne
Do you use a microscope to look at your screen SAR T186???
 
SAR T186 Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting for the next train to Seaford S.A
Heh a microscope Razz  The reason for the high resolution is becuase my laptop is widescreen which unique to other laptops, where as if i run my laptop in say 1024x768 like i would on a normal CRT Desktop moniiter it doesn't look right and big as well. As 1920x1600 is designed for widescreen.

go to http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/inspn_8600_au?c=au&l=en&s=dhs for more information.
 
agentmeh Assistant Commissioner

zipitidoodah Wrote:
my laptop can, actaully be set upto 1920x1600 pixels which i use all the time:) so i have no problems with picture no matter what size.
- SAR T186

Except that there is maybe 200 pixels on the left hand side of the screen used for the poster's information, plus the borders around the various bits of the page, meaning you probably only have 1750 pixels available for an image.  I am certain there were some posted in the last few days which were indeed 2000 pixels wide - so even with your wonderful sounding laptop, you would still have to scroll to see all of the image.
- duttonbay


Bit of a hint, if you are using IE6, drag the image into the address bar, and it will appear as the only object in your browser window - at the same time, it will resize to be 100% viewable.

M
 
Webslave - Administrator Site Admin

Location: Altona, Melbourne
zipitidoodah Wrote:
my laptop can, actaully be set upto 1920x1600 pixels which i use all the time:) so i have no problems with picture no matter what size.
- SAR T186

Except that there is maybe 200 pixels on the left hand side of the screen used for the poster's information, plus the borders around the various bits of the page, meaning you probably only have 1750 pixels available for an image.  I am certain there were some posted in the last few days which were indeed 2000 pixels wide - so even with your wonderful sounding laptop, you would still have to scroll to see all of the image.
- duttonbay


Bit of a hint, if you are using IE6, drag the image into the address bar, and it will appear as the only object in your browser window - at the same time, it will resize to be 100% viewable.

M
- agentmeh

The problem being though, that the image is still on the page which makes the table wider to compensate, thus meaning that text will wrap off the screen, meaning you have to scroll to see every line.

Perhaps people could consider just providing a link in these cases?
 
duttonbay Minister for Railways

The problem being though, that the image is still on the page which makes the table wider to compensate, thus meaning that text will wrap off the screen, meaning you have to scroll to see every line.

Perhaps people could consider just providing a link in these cases?
- Webslave


Perhaps people might just like to consider resizing the image so it can be seen on one single screen.  After all, not too many images are printed in books in such a way that you need to go to four pages in order to see the whole thing.

A pox on 5Mp cameras used at full resolution - it's wonderful for images to be printed, but the images are too big for monitors.
 
wurx Lithgovian Ambassador-at-Large

Location: The birthplace of Street's Ice Cream
I have the gif, I have permission to use it, I've saved it to my PC; this may sound like a dumb-ish question, but how do I get it into my siggy? Taking into account all of the previous posts on this subject, the gif is not of an "obtrusive" size; I'm just not sure what and/or how much info I have to enter into the signature box in my profile so the gif will appear.
 
Webslave - Administrator Site Admin

Location: Altona, Melbourne
I have the gif, I have permission to use it, I've saved it to my PC; this may sound like a dumb-ish question, but how do I get it into my siggy? Taking into account all of the previous posts on this subject, the gif is not of an "obtrusive" size; I'm just not sure what and/or how much info I have to enter into the signature box in my profile so the gif will appear.
- wurx
You need to upload it to somewhere and then use the [ img ] tag. Click on post and hover your mouse over the Img button for syntax information.
 
wurx Lithgovian Ambassador-at-Large

Location: The birthplace of Street's Ice Cream
I have the gif, I have permission to use it, I've saved it to my PC; this may sound like a dumb-ish question, but how do I get it into my siggy? Taking into account all of the previous posts on this subject, the gif is not of an "obtrusive" size; I'm just not sure what and/or how much info I have to enter into the signature box in my profile so the gif will appear.
- wurx
You need to upload it to somewhere and then use the [ img ] tag. Click on post and hover your mouse over the Img button for syntax information.
- Webslave

Upload it to [i]somewhere[/i]? Where? You lost me at the last crossing loop, Webslave Embarassed I already have the gif saved in [i]My Pictures[/i] - if using the "url" syntax, must that include the "http etc etc" or is merely the gif's file name sufficient?
 
Webslave - Administrator Site Admin

Location: Altona, Melbourne
I have the gif, I have permission to use it, I've saved it to my PC; this may sound like a dumb-ish question, but how do I get it into my siggy? Taking into account all of the previous posts on this subject, the gif is not of an "obtrusive" size; I'm just not sure what and/or how much info I have to enter into the signature box in my profile so the gif will appear.
- wurx
You need to upload it to somewhere and then use the [ img ] tag. Click on post and hover your mouse over the Img button for syntax information.
- Webslave

Upload it to somewhere? Where? You lost me at the last crossing loop, Webslave Embarassed I already have the gif saved in My Pictures - if using the "url" syntax, must that include the "http etc etc" or is merely the gif's file name sufficient?
- wurx
You need to have some webspace on the internet to upload it to, just having it on your machine isnt enough. An example would be something like http://www.myserver.com/mypics/pic1.gif

If you PM me, I might be able to host some images for you...
 
Hellbilly Chief Commissioner

Location: Pampa Texas
My problem with this is not the loading time, it is a pain in the rear end scrolling across to read the rest the post, which is still the case. Can something please be done about the WIDTH and LENGTH of these bloody link to photo pages and whatever else people have attatched to their signatures? It is totally unnecessary to have these things, why not just a link, like the above poster?
 

You must be logged in to reply

  Search thread   Image gallery
1 of 3 2 3 »
 
Display from: