trigggl Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 Why do we have such a limiting width restriction for images in sigs?As long as you use an image small in memory, why not allow the width of the sig block? Most banners are wider than 300 and it makes it hard to find one that fits. Since the board image tags don't seem to allow showing image links smaller, those who don't have a way to host images are out of luck. This includes the vast majority of dial-up users, including myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arena2045 Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 (edited) trigggl (Greg):The signature limitations for both text and images are currently defined in the easiest way possible. We have the limitations set for a few reasons. Many members are still using dialup: large text signatures can sometimes become as long or longer than the average length of a standard post... and sig images take even longer to load.The dimensions set by the rules were agreed upon as not to large and not to small, but just right to get enough expressed in an image. Many members are turned off or annoyed by large signature images, and by limiting the max width to 300 pixels we eliminate the chance that members will use banner type ads/images. We feel that the set dimensions allow enough for the members to express their creativity and individuality.If you do not have a place to host images that you wish to post either in a thread or in your signature, contact a Moderator, or an Administrator, and we will work with you to the best of our ability, to get any images on a server . Edited April 23, 2004 by Arena2045 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.