Subject:
|
Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 May 2003 14:44:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1339 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, John Henry Kruer wrote:
| |
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 images above 100 X 100,’ which
rules out both images large in size and space.
|
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 events, etc) are no larger than 640x480.
Sig images and avatars are a different thing alltogether. The second post in
this thread on FBTB:
http://pub186.ezboard.com/fthefbtbcommunityfrm20.showMessage?topicID=831.topic
Shows both a distasteful avatar and a distasteful sig. On the avatar, I almost
lost my lunch (which I was eating at the time) when I saw it. Nothing like
seeing a face that looks like death when browsing a LEGO site. On the sig image,
it’s just too dang big. Imagine someone participating in a thread, and *each*
message they post has a large image, often exceeding the size of the content of
their message (like this fellow). I don’t want to see that happen on LUGNET.
I try to browse FBTB and BZP regularly, but often have trouble keeping up with
the latest on each site. Part of that is the EZBoard format. Also, the
distasteful images which abound really diminish the experience for me. I’m not
trying to knock either site - I love them both for the information they provide,
and for the outlet they provide for their fan bases. However I value written
communication far above Paintbrush art, and I’ve got a low tolerance for
graphics done in poor taste.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
