Spot it :p

[SSX Fahd]

Spot the extra option

I've still got some bug-testing to do first. Assuming there's no objection to installing this, one of the admins (preferably not me, please ), will need to have that option switched on to check for objectionable content.

I figured I'd give you guys a heads-up (so to speak) whilst I continue testing .

--edit--

You guys might also want to discuss appropiate maximum image sizes, & dimensions.

[esd]

Didn't we say "no" to signature images?

[SSX Fahd]

Didn't we say "no" to signature images?

It's a profile option . You get to choose whether they're loaded or not. I figured by the large number of threads on the issue I'd make a mod for it .

[Anubis]

Gogo Fahd! We said no until such an option could be introduced for those that don't want them iirc

And I would be leaving the images on anyway, since I'll want to use my own, so I can keep an eye out for objectional images if no other admin wants them on

[Inquisitor]

Small, no animations, No flash, no gifs. I guess we'll test it.

I would liek the size to be admin configurable, can the mod automagically resize them if they are stupid? What about picture file sizes? I am guessing if its any smaller than 400x100 people will bitch. but any larger and I will have an aneurism, so that seems a fair start.

Joy, now half the vertical real estate will be taken up with peoples sigs :/

I really didn't ever want sig images. Meh.

[Isileth]

I like the idea. Doesnt clutter it for those that dont want them yet still allows those that do to see them. Everyone wins! Still think the no flash rule and small sizes will need to be quite strict however. There is a fine line between ok and totally annoying

[SSX Fahd]

Already answered Quiz's questions in IRC but I'm putting the answers here for everyone else's benefit:

Maximum image sizes and dimensions can be set in the admin control panel. Animated images can also be disabled from there. When people put images into their sig they're checked against those conditions. The default state for the mod is "off" so anyone who wants a sig image will have to switch it on (so no one needs to see a sig image unless they want to).

[SSX Fahd]

Okay, I've talked with Saad about this mod and he's given me some ideas that means Quiz (or any other admin) won't have to see sig images in topics. It's going to take me a few days to get it worked out though, so standby till then .

[M.Steiner]

Seems fair enough, if people don't wanna see them they can just turn em off.

I'm not an admin but i'll keep images on to check for objectional sigs, i'll just poke Anny or someone if i see any.

[Anubis]

Seems fair enough, if people don't wanna see them they can just turn em off.

I'm not an admin but i'll keep images on to check for objectional sigs, i'll just poke Anny or someone if i see any.

Slavedriver

[BlackDove]

If you're a mod or an admin you HAVE to keep them on to remove the ones that are retarded.

This is gonna suck.....

I say we have very small dimensions on them at the very least. Something like 250x50 or something. The banner is 380x115, and I do not want any signature images as big as that.

[Kon]

Odd, I don't seem to have that option in my profile. Oh, and testing.

[BlueFlames]

A query: What was the point in all of those threads (where the concensus was 'no sig images') if we're just going to allow them anyway? I know we left behind the vote-on-everything mentality, but when you have clear data on what the general will of the membership is, it's pretty lame to just bypass that will.

Bah. Like we needed signatures to get any longer than they already are....

[Inquisitor]

Having the ability to turn them off is key, if I want to READ posts, I want to be able to do it without having to see sig pics. Anny can be in charge of moderating them if Cheets figures out how to enable that.

[Isileth]

The fact is having the option to see them or not suits everyone. Stopping people having them when it wont actually effect those who dont want them seems stupid. As long as there is indeed a way for them to be turned off for those who are against them it need not effect them at all.

[esd]

Oh, and testing.

Remove it, the mod's not in place yet.

[Anubis]

A query: What was the point in all of those threads (where the concensus was 'no sig images') if we're just going to allow them anyway? I know we left behind the vote-on-everything mentality, but when you have clear data on what the general will of the membership is, it's pretty lame to just bypass that will.

The consensus of the last vote was 50% voting either way, and I believe it was stated we'd go with no until we had such an ability to turn them on and off at will, and an ability to moderate them. This mod will do that, so in the interests of fairness the mod should be used. That way both those who voted no AND those who voted yes can be happy, since people can opt to have them off or on in their profile, rather than simply those who voted no being happy, as is currently the case

And BD...250x50 is far too small. 400x100 is the smallest sig pic I've ever used, and its been fine on every forum Ive been to that allows sig pics, in fact I often use bigger ones now rather than that. Some forums (such as Gateworld) even allow up to 700x400. Whilst I agree we should keep things small, at least to start with, anything below 400x100 would be, imo, too small. The smaller you get the less a point there is to having them in the first place, as it becomes harder and harder for people to display what they want.

And yeah, I don't mind being in charge of moderating them like I said. I'll have them on anyway, so I may aswell.

[SSX Fahd]

Sorry Kahn, no sig images just yet. BlackDove's complaint (about moderating these images) is what I'm working on at the moment.

A query: What was the point in all of those threads (where the consensus was 'no sig images') if we're just going to allow them anyway? I know we left behind the vote-on-everything mentality, but when you have clear data on what the general will of the membership is, it's pretty lame to just bypass that will.

If only one person requested I make a reasonable modification (i.e. no office assistants ), and if I was able to do so without affecting everyone else's forum experience (or forum performance), then I'd do it given enough free time.

[Cynical mode]
Fortunately we haven't started electing site admins, otherwise phpbb modding would be like election campaigning: Make mods that most people want and ignore individual or lowly requested mods, even if they are technically challenging and thus more interesting to make (at least to me).
[/Cynical Mode]

*Goes back to modding*

[BlackDove]

And BD...250x50 is far too small. 400x100 is the smallest sig pic I've ever used, and its been fine on every forum Ive been to that allows sig pics, in fact I often use bigger ones now rather than that. Some forums (such as Gateworld) even allow up to 700x400. Whilst I agree we should keep things small, at least to start with, anything below 400x100 would be, imo, too small. The smaller you get the less a point there is to having them in the first place, as it becomes harder and harder for people to display what they want.

And 400x100 is far too big. It's bigger than the current banner actually.

I don't really care what other forums allow, most other forums are garbage anyway, so it doesn't really surprise me that they would allow 700x400 pixels of pure shit to be displayed for every member that wants it.

250x100 or 300x100 is fully sufficient for an image where it doesn't belong anyway. Just because you will be allowed to use the feature doesn't mean that we should allow no constraints and allow everyone to be a Picasso with an open canvas. You know why? Everyone isn't Picasso.

If you are unable to express yourself within minimal constraints, then that's really your problem. It's already disturbing enough that you need to express yourself through art in a place where communication through words is the primary medium.

Even with the feature turned on, the forums STILL need to look tasteful and considering their primary use is CONVERSATION and COMMUNICATION, sig image sizes should be kept to a minimum anyway.

[esd]

I can understand limiting them hieght-wise quite tightly, but width? 500pixels won't stretch anyone's screen unless they're running stupidly low resolutions (in which case links would do the same).

If you're going to allow them, there's no point making them pointless. 400x100 is probably the minimum at which there's much point.

[Kon]

And 400x100 is far too big. It's bigger than the current banner actually.

I don't really care what other forums allow, most other forums are garbage anyway, so it doesn't really surprise me that they would allow 700x400 pixels of pure shit to be displayed for every member that wants it.

250x100 or 300x100 is fully sufficient for an image where it doesn't belong anyway. Just because you will be allowed to use the feature doesn't mean that we should allow no constraints and allow everyone to be a Picasso with an open canvas. You know why? Everyone isn't Picasso.

If you are unable to express yourself within minimal constraints, then that's really your problem. It's already disturbing enough that you need to express yourself through art in a place where communication through words is the primary medium.

Even with the feature turned on, the forums STILL need to look tasteful and considering their primary use is CONVERSATION and COMMUNICATION, sig image sizes should be kept to a minimum anyway.

You don't have to view them BD.

Remove it, the mod's not in place yet.

Oops, sorry. I see someone already took care of it though.

[BlackDove]

You don't have to view them BD.

Yes....?

Re-stating what's already been stated isn't quite an argument. It doesn't matter whether I see them or not.

I can understand limiting them hieght-wise quite tightly, but width? 500pixels won't stretch anyone's screen unless they're running stupidly low resolutions (in which case links would do the same).

If you're going to allow them, there's no point making them pointless. 400x100 is probably the minimum at which there's much point.

You would be right if height was at all the issue. It's not so much the fact that it mangles the boards a bit further down as much as it's about an image (usually a bad one) covering a set amount of space.

Think of... advertisments. I don't want to look at any of them, but depending on the size of the image, the bigger it is, the greater the chance I'll have to look at it.

Width, height - if I made an epilepsy inducing signature image (any of the neon colors), the size would of course make a difference.

Less image space on the boards please.

[Thunderbird]

I'm pretty sure one of the mods I installed on the SSC board awhile back had an option to limit sigpic size (it certainly had an option to disable them). But I can't check that for obvious reasons .

[Isileth]

BD the whole point of this is that those who dont want to see them dont have to. Therefore it doesnt really matter if people think it would mess up the boards because they just keep it turned off. I fail to see how that can be seen as a valid point because that is the main thing this mod would solve...

[BlackDove]

Because the forums are still the forums, with the feature turned on or turned off.

It's not as if we're just going to magically turn off the feature and let you do whatever the hell you want with the structure look and layout of the boards.

The boards need to look decent and clean under ANY feature, on or off.