Jump to content

Pictures in sigs

st3ph3n

By st3ph3n
in Scottish Scoobies

Recommended Posts

st3ph3n

st3ph3n

Posted
Posted

Fromst the guidelines -

"Signatures [Added 14th February]<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

Whilst the forum software allows the facility to upload a picture it is requested that NO pictures are included."

The offenders know who they are!

Signed: The campaign for Internet Usability

Gumball

Gumball

Posted
Posted

[:S]pmsl,

Thats about all this thread was good for. a bit of nonsense and abuse from you...[pi].

LHFOJ

Grant would know as we hump behind your back when your getting amongst the schlongjockies and have nothing to do other than felch goats in the desert sun.

I promise that by the time you return you can have your lover back[:)][:)][:D]

goat fell goat out

Jesus_gun.jpg

col666

col666

Posted
Posted

Thats mine gone[:)] I am not getting any answers about my avatar so thought I would of been entitled to a wee pic...bah humbug!

 

Col.

jcscoob

jcscoob

Posted
Posted

[|-)][|-)] OK everyone thats put a pik on there sig IS VERY VERY BAD !!! [|-)][|-)]

So if i see any and i meen any small pik of your own car on your own sig then im calling the sig police !! [:D]

Honestly someone has far to much time on there hands to worrie about something so pathetic as a SMALL pik in someone's sig - get a life !!!

 This forum used to be REALY GOOD but now its pants you cant post up anything with out it being frowned apon [:)]

Some body some where will probably think im a nob for saying this but so wot, bring back the old forum !!

 

Anybody that thinks a SMALL pik in the sig is a good thing please put your name on the good list, and everybody that thinks its a BAD thing please put your name on the bad list !!

 

SMALL pik good thing

1. jc scoob

 

SMALL pik bad thing

1. ???

st3ph3n

st3ph3n

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's simple JC. Pictures in signatures make the pages bigger, both in terms of the size on screen and in how much has to be downloaded to view them. They make them harder to read through. It takes longer to hunt for the information in amongst the pictures as your eyes will naturally be drawn to pictures over the text. If someone posts 3 replies to a particular thread then their picture shows up three times on that thread. Do we really need to see that picture 3 times on that 1 page? NO. Avatars are fine because they are set aside from the general flow of the thread itself, but pictures and large signatures in general completely disrupt the flow of the conversation.

I know it seems petty or sad, but I write software and websites for a living. If I presented a website with pictures in between the text or content then I'd lose my job frankly. Usability and accessability is paramount. Pictures that aren't part of the content aren't.

Bringing back the old forum wont help - it certainly never supported pictures.

I hope that explains it.

jcscoob

jcscoob

Posted
Posted

Ok steven i see your point, and i know there were no piks in the old forum but it just seems to have changed aroud here for the worse ! [:)]

 

 

Gumball

Gumball

Posted
Posted

in relation to andys apparent non conformist response..........i had posted a big long rant about that fact that we were doing nothing other than the RB event this year?

everyone whinges all the time (like me now), no one wants to organise anything and its all becoming a bit sh@t.

Then i thought..........wtf is the point. no one else gives a flying monkeys hoop

so i editted the post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...