 | | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
| In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Tim Courtney wrote: <snip> (...) Mmm, really, may I ask what was the intended purpose of including outside images? I'n sort of confused here- no big images, no sig images, etc. You could make a rule that simply says, 'no (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
| (...) I think MOC images can (and should) be larger. I'm not concerned about size there (though others are). I'm on a DSL connection, running 1600x1200 resolution. But, I do respect those who don't have that available, and suggest images of MOCs (or (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
| (...) For all sorts of things. (...) Not excessively big. Use common sense. (...) Again, use common sense. Sig images are fine if they don't annoy people. --Todd (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
| (...) I think 640x480 is a good suggested maximum. IMHO, there'd be nothing wrong with 640x2000, though, if it were, say, a giant comic book page. I think it really needs to be left up to the viewer to decide what to do with large images. (...) Hmm, (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
| (...) If such a thing were possible, yes :-) -Tim (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
| |
