The great big signature poll

[Caelum]

So those of you who have been following my JKHub Changelog thread will have noticed signatures disappeared, and we had a discussion about that. To recap:

 

But Caelum, why did you hide signatures?!

It's an idea I've been playing around with for a while, and I pitched to several people on Discord who seemed reasonably positive about it. The basic reasoning behind it is:

• Avatars are a thing (and I might make those larger) - is there really any added value in having two images to represent people instead of one?
• Signatures don't usually contain anything very relevant - they often end up sort of distracting from the main content
• Statistically a lot of people already don't have signatures
• Right now, it's experimental and no signature contents are lost, but if we make this permanent, it'll speed up page load times

I promised I'd post a poll about it - here it is.

[Darth Futuza]

Disable by default, but allow as is now if users opt in?

[Jeff]

Disable by default, but allow as is now if users opt in?

 

This ^

[Omicron]

Being able to disable signatures is something I've always liked about this forum. Takes up unnecessary space.

[Caelum]

Disable by default, but allow as is now if users opt in?

Unfortunately, I don't think that's a thing the software can actually do. There's the ability to disable signatures, but there's no sane way to make that opt-out instead of opt-in

[eezstreet]

I still want to know what percentage of active posters actually use signatures, because that's a pretty major criteria (I think) of the feature staying or going. You said that the majority of all members don't have signatures, but nothing about active posters.

 

That being said, getting rid of signatures entirely can break old post solutions (eg, "check the link in my signature to find the OpenJK project") which feelsbadman.

[Sentra]

disable embedded images and media in signatures

Maybe we don't need to forbid the entire media in signatures, instead just create some simple rules like "1 image is allowed, maximum total signature height is ** px" and softlock them (I remember I've seen that kind of settings in IPB).

[Circa]

Maybe we don't need to forbid the entire media in signatures, instead just create some simple rules like "1 image is allowed, maximum total signature height is ** px" and softlock them (I remember I've seen that kind of settings in IPB).

That's already set in place too, though I think it's much more lenient. We should definitely limit to 1 small image.

[Darth Futuza]

Unfortunately, I don't think that's a thing the software can actually do. There's the ability to disable signatures, but there's no sane way to make that opt-out instead of opt-in

I guess a work around could just be the default theme doesn't show them, but an alternate theme does.

[Caelum]

I guess a work around could just be the default theme doesn't show them, but an alternate theme does.

That's possible, but there are some issues:

• By default, signatures would have to be hidden entirely. Right now, the poll seems 50/50 between bringing back signatures the way they were, and allowing them without embedded media. Going off that, it'd be a shitty default.
• It'd mean maintaining 2 more themes and periodically unbreaking them (recurring logo breakage comes to mind), meaning extra maintenance burden.

If there's a lot of demand for that option I'll add it to the poll, but I don't think it'd work out very well. Maybe if we were able to hide embedded media in signatures without killing them entirely in the default theme, but the only way to do that would be to hide them through CSS: every single signature would still be loaded even if they're never shown (as they are now), meaning no page load speed benefits.

[z3filus]

I also like this forum because there aren't any visible signature images. Something small is ok, but that's it.

[Caelum]

Soooo, the poll is almost 50/50, with a slight majority (2 votes) in favor of allowing signatures without images/media. You people are not making this decision easier here. 

[Circa]

I say we allow one small image, as a compromise.

[Caelum]

I say we allow one small image, as a compromise.

What kind of dimensions specifically are you thinking?

[Circa]

What kind of dimensions specifically are you thinking?

Right now it's set to 650 x 250 as the limit. Would be nice if we could set that a bit smaller AND limit the file size, but there's no way of doing that.

 

500 x 150 maybe? Don't want it too small, otherwise you might as well not allow any.

[Rayce]

Can we at least allow steam profile signatures? They serve a purpose, at least. (Though I'm probably biased since I use one myself.)

[Caelum]

Right now it's set to 650 x 250 as the limit. Would be nice if we could set that a bit smaller AND limit the file size, but there's no way of doing that.

 

500 x 150 maybe? Don't want it too small, otherwise you might as well not allow any.

For what it's worth, the current page of this forum thread loads about 250kb worth of signatures, all of which are significantly below 500 x 150. It seems to me those size limitations would be akin to changing nothing, because almost every signature is already at or below 500 x 150. Also, a lot of images will slow down page loads regardless of their file size (though size plays a larger role) because the browser needs to make a DNS lookup to whatever third-party domain the image is hosted on and finish a separate connection with that site.

 

Can we at least allow steam profile signatures? They serve a purpose, at least. (Though I'm probably biased since I use one myself.)

I liked @'s idea of putting more information under the avatar area/in profile pages. Steam might be an example of something that'd go there instead quite well.

[dark_apprentice]

Bring them back for sure, but optimize the idea. With this I am saying:
1 image /.jpg, gif or whatever the member wants and have around/ that can upload as the signature. 
2. Size for every signature (for example not longer 600x800 pix.) and nothing less or more than the size you decide.
3. If a certain user/member doesn't want to make signatures just don't put them.
4. If possible, make a simple option on the topics that can allow the member to hide or show his signature (or let's say for every new topic that is made whoever starts the topic can decide if he wants to allow signatures to be visible or not).

...but over all I think it's better if we just keep them up.

[Morabis]

On default hide the signatures but allow users the option for sigs to be shown if they prefer it that way.

[IrocJeff]

They should be limited to one line of text or better yet, eliminated altogether. Nothing but self aggrandizing narcissism if you ask me    

[minilogoguy18]

Allow them but make them more limited, can't stand when people use huge images that take up page space or tons of stuff that is just them gloating.

 

Mine serves a purpose like eezstreet's does.

[Sentra]

I want my fancy pic back! :<

[Ramikad]

14 - 9 - 2.

The Jedi are taking ovah.

[Circa]

They should be limited to one line of text or better yet, eliminated altogether. Nothing but self aggrandizing narcissism if you ask me    

 

How? How is providing relevant things about yourself narcissistic? 

 

@@Caelum I find it odd that you made the poll but didn't do the option that had the most votes. Seems you already made your mind up going in.

[Cerez]

And where will I put my DRM-free activist promo image?

 

I need that space to battle the corporate powers!

On a more serious note, the page load time would be significantly increased if we all hosted our images on one image host server. Seeing as our images are not large, I think this could even be the same server that serves the site. But if not, let's just pick another image host server we'll all use for sigs unanimously.

 

As for sigs getting in the way, I don't know... I've always found them to be a sort of barrier that closes off a person's post, but doesn't necessarily impact the topic's flow. It helps me visually distinguish who is speaking. Without them, all text seems to roll into one big, messy pile for me (even if the avatars are there). I have to keep checking back to the left to see who is speaking, which, after a while, and if you're reading a lot, gets quite tiresome.

 

I usually use the avatars to locate someone's post within a topic, and not to follow who's speaking (unless I have to). The sig is my main way of identifying the speaker, since it is in the flow of what I'm reading.