CSS image attributes and Signature limits

[Melody]

In regards to the image limits in signatures of 500x300 px

If someone's signature uses a CSS box, sized 500x300 px to cover the image, shouldn't that be allowed if the 500x300 rule is in place to prevent screen hogging images?

The reason why I'm asking is because I feel that CSS attributes limiting what is visible should be taken into account when images are being tallied up, including the size of CSS boxes with scrolling enabled to offer "more" to the signature than what is immediately displayed.

I can understand the rule against hiding the images in spoiler boxes, because those span the entire screen width wise and spoilers aren't for that purpose. But I think if someone puts effort into CSS that effectively allows more images to be used, that a total file size limit is more appropriate than a total pixel limit. (Say for example that your signature should exceed no more than 1 or 2MB

This could be enforced when CSS is in use to ensure that no CSS based signature causes long load delays due to file size.

Additionally, I think a global file size limit could be useful in addition to the 500x300 px limit, in order to optimize load times for low bandwidth users. Something like 1MB is reasonable, especially if someone is using an animated GIF file.

 

[Nick]

Just so you know your thread isn't being ignored, we've been discussing these points on and off for a while now and I'm pretty sure we're in the process of solidifying some more detailed outlines on signature rules and CSS attributes used.

 

[Melody]

Well thank goodness. I was hoping that some ideas were being tossed around HQ rather than me being ignored. \o/

 

[Deleted member 143209]

Heh, funny you mentioned this. But yes, we're looking into, and have been doing so for a while, expanding the body of rules in relation to signature creation. Basically, a moderator (in my opinion), has the right to disable a signature if it's just ridiculously big and stretching the page due to CSS even though the rules aren't yet clear on the matter. I would just urge all members to stick with 500x300 whether they use CSS coding or not, for the most part, I say this because elements such as text do not contribute to this.

At any rate, it was brought up not too long ago by a staff member and hopefully, will be resolved soon as drafts are in process. We will announce when the new and/or expanded rules are in place.

 

[Melody]

What I'm proposing though is simply the use of one or more images where the grand pixel total exceeds 500x300, but limiting viewing by using a CSS box no larger than 500x300.

Now I don't intend to attempt to pull this off, but I definitely think that if you're using CSS and multiple images which do not exceed 500x300 alone you shouldn't need to worry about the overall 500x300 limit as long as your code isn't doing weird things like stretching a page to insane lengths. (think using CSS to layer images together in a way allowing for dynamic positioning of different elements of a signature banner, such as icons, sprites, overlay images to add effects and more, thus allowing reconfiguration on the fly without needing to open an image editor, and re-upload images.)

 

[Urugamosu]

It did happen to me..... Look at my sig.