Scratch

Mike16112 wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

Mike16112 wrote:

Aw man c'mon it was just a joke. 

It wasn't a very funny joke. It alters a user's web browser window and is difficult to close (often requiring the aid of the Windows Task Manager or other program equivalent). Additionally, the website is flagged by many online security software as being harmful.

Please do not post that website again.

You can always disable JavaScript for that page.

If other people were not aware that it was a harmful rickroll website, they may not think of disabling JavaScript first. Younger users may not even be familiar with how to disable JavaScript at all.

And again, many online security software programs label the website as harmful (flagging it as red). So please do not post that website in the future.

coolperson wrote:

What did the website do?

It causes most web browsers to restore down and jump all over the screen; if you're lucky to hit the exit button, an annoying pop-up will appear (one of those that keep coming up every time you close it).

There's also claims that the website will install a virus onto the computer. So I had to remove it.

Last edited by cheddargirl (2009-09-07 20:45:35)

About the twice size of my sig picture would be a good size limit

Last edited by weswesrock (2009-09-07 21:04:11)

200

cheddargirl wrote:

Mike16112 wrote:

Mike16112 wrote:

[harmful rickroll website removed by moderator]

Aw man c'mon it was just a joke. 

It wasn't a very funny joke. It alters a user's web browser window and is difficult to close (often requiring the aid of the Windows Task Manager or other program equivalent). Additionally, the website is flagged by many online security software as being harmful.

Please do not post that website again.

I agree to every modator in the world.

rdococ wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

Mike16112 wrote:

Aw man c'mon it was just a joke. 

It wasn't a very funny joke. It alters a user's web browser window and is difficult to close (often requiring the aid of the Windows Task Manager or other program equivalent). Additionally, the website is flagged by many online security software as being harmful.

Please do not post that website again.

I agree to every moderator in the world.

The size of the image is part of the expression that a signature gives! 200 is a perfect limit to me.

lol... Mine is exactly 150 pixels. 

So they went with 150?

150 pixels will probably be the best to handle with.    It's a reasonably right size, compared to a huge signature.

About 200.

I think that the distracting images are not necessarily the big ones, but moreso with them having clashing colours and animation. It might help if we further limit the size of animated images, and check the colour to see how clashing the image will be (PHP is capable of this). For instance, ones that have a gray/transparent background, and a modest graphic at the centre are generally OK, (jacool and mozaz' current ones are a good example), whereas big blocks of blue, black, red, etc are considerably more distracting. (I won't mention any names here...)

The colour clash problem could also be lessened by making the signature images semitransparent. This could be accomplished by giving the class signatureImage to any signature images, and applying the CSS rule

.signatureImage {opacity:0.8;filter:alpha(opacity=80)}

Another idea is to have a system where on mouseover of a user's signature image, a minus button appears, and a user can click it to make the image smaller. If this happens enough on a user's images, then they will always appear this way.

militarydudes wrote:

I say 150 is best, ST 

I agree. Going up higher is pushing it somewhat.