[Fairyxo]

Is there a reason we're not allowed images in signatures?

I mean, if we limited it to so many images/pixels or a certain size, then surely there's no problem...?

I'd really like them so I just wondered why and if they could be implemented (with rules if needed)...

 

[calexandre]

We have no malice asking. Surely, given a small space like 400x120, it would not clog up the poor overworked browsers of others? Freedom of expression is a wonder of modern society, non?

 

[Scrub-Zero]

we had them before the board switched owner.
but the new owner wont allow them...or the site can't, i'm not sure exactly.
it sucks, though.

It was asked before and the answer was no.
oh well.

 

[Drew]

I understand some of you would like to have signature images. In the interest of faster loading pages for those with less than speedy internet connections I've decided not to allow signatures.

This may be something that changes in the future.

Drew

 

[calexandre]

We might make a poll on what percentage of users still use dial up connections. In other forums I've been to just a handful use 56k. Something like 2 out of 5000. Which means no issues with random sigs.

Also if you limit the sig resolution to about 400x120 (that's barely half the forum text width for a small 1024x screen) and the file size to perhaps, 20k .jpg the loading time for 56k is barely a few seconds.

If one does not wish to see other's signatures then perhaps the forum software has a "view other users signatures?" option.