| Author |
Message |
DavidB
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 11, 2003
Last Visited: Jan 25, 2007
Location: Canberra
contact
|
post
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:10 pm
|
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
Joined: May 11, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 7, 2008
Location: Rail SA
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:35 pm
|
| DavidB wrote: | 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 |
is my signature alright?
Regards, Tom Marschall
 |
|
|
duttonbay
Chief Commissioner
Joined: May 26, 2003
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:53 pm
|
| mars wrote: | | DavidB wrote: | 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.
|
is my signature alright? |
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
Patron Saint of Alcohol
Joined: Jan 17, 1985
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: Lost Somewhere In Time
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:28 pm
|
|
Why not just put the restriction at the common web banner size?
|
|
|
standard_gauge
Dr Beeching
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
Last Visited: Oct 26, 2008
Location: Outside the toilet, waiting for Della Bosca to come out !!
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:30 pm
|
|
How's mine then? I am not sure the size of mine
Hey?..whatever happen to my warning level?
|
|
|
K163
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jan 15, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 29, 2008
Location: Well you see that house over there? Well it's not that one.
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:38 pm
|
| Jam>s C/ wrote: | | How's mine then? I am not sure the size of mine |
Your's is about 100 pixels too high (its 600 x 225)
Regards,
Craig Walton
What I say here is my thoughts, and doesn't represent the MRPS or Woolworths ltd... smeg imagine it did!
If you want to loose weight, don't eat anything that comes in a BUCKET!
|
|
|
zipitidoodah
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
Last Visited: Apr 28, 2007
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 6:14 pm
|
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
Joined: Jan 12, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 26, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:16 pm
|
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.
Views expressed by me are strictly my own, not of my friends, employer, or anyone else, unless otherwise stated.
*Back at RP for a limited time only*
|
|
|
standard_gauge
Dr Beeching
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
Last Visited: Oct 26, 2008
Location: Outside the toilet, waiting for Della Bosca to come out !!
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:20 pm
|
| K163 wrote: | | Jam>s C/ wrote: | | How's mine then? I am not sure the size of mine |
Your's is about 100 pixels too high (its 600 x 225) |
hmmmmm I really like my signiture image..... 
Hey?..whatever happen to my warning level?
|
|
|
agentmeh
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: May 19, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 7, 2004
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:59 pm
|
| duttonbay wrote: | | mars wrote: | | DavidB wrote: | 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.
|
is my signature alright? |
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. |
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
Joined: Feb 03, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 29, 2008
Location: Melbourne
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:06 pm
|
great idea having a rule on the banners.
how about 75 upward and 430
|
|
|
michaelgreenhill
Patron Saint of Alcohol
Joined: Jan 17, 1985
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: Lost Somewhere In Time
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:11 pm
|
|
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
Chief Commissioner
Joined: May 26, 2003
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 7:52 am
|
| agentmeh wrote: | | duttonbay wrote: | | 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. |
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. |
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
Joined: May 13, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 18, 2008
Location: Ding Ding the tram next from City West isn't far away.
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 2:46 pm
|
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.
Pichi Richi Railway Member
Freinds Of Belair Station Member
National Railway Museum Member
"You Can Never Beat The Force Of The T"
Dogs go Wacko For Schmako's
|
|
|
duttonbay
Chief Commissioner
Joined: May 26, 2003
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:48 pm
|
| SAR T186 wrote: | 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. |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
