At 10/4/06 08:22 AM, liljim wrote: As for the animated sig people, there are even less - around 8,000, give or take.

So minorities don't count as people? They're not as important? Is that what you're saying, Hitler?

Only messing, I'd adapt to the new look but I can't say I won't miss animated sigs. I can see the reasoning behind the change and I'm glad you guys ran it past the forrums without just doing it. I don't agree with it but I'd get used to it.

No problem to me, sigs aren't my specialty anyway.

At 10/3/06 10:54 AM, TomFulp wrote:
So the question is... Do we beautify the forums at the expense of pissing off everyone that has to reformat their sigs?

Nope, I think every user should have their personal sig, I don't think that it will ruin whatever design you have planned, our sigs are here to stay.

I can live with that.

I liked Jeff's examples earlier of long sigs but only thinner by 10px.

It seems to be a bit more slick than 60 pixels height and a long sig - which looks a bit out of proportion and too big.

I'm all for change, just not as drastic as first suggested.

At 10/4/06 01:47 PM, N-Antichrist wrote: I'm all for change, just not as drastic as first suggested.

Speaking of which, care on explaining your sig?

I WANNA SEE TOO!!!

At 10/4/06 02:55 AM, Ozcar wrote:

Keep the animated sigs, please....

Ozcar begging!

And lo, the firt sign of the end has passed.

At 10/3/06 10:36 PM, Kamron wrote: Questions I have:
• Will sigs be centered in the signature area if it is not the maximum width? Height to?
• What about file size? Increased, decreased, same?
• Anything else about sigs being discussed for changes?

1. The sig would be aligned left.
2. Probably the same.
3. We were tossing around the idea of charging the mouthiest users a fee to post if they haven't ever uploaded any content. Because there's nothing sadder than a talentless consumer endlessly complaining about the tiniest of changes. And really, what have the loudmouths ever done for anyone?

To epxand on my previous points, I don't care if the length gets bigger or stays the same, but I really want that 60 pixels. And I want animation.

Centering the sig picture could be nice, and would help make the space filled more efficiently.

At 10/4/06 03:03 PM, bob wrote: And really, what have the loudmouths ever done for anyone?

That's easy. They earn their keep in crap like sports radio, and awful mid-afternoon talk-shows. Places where listening is not encouraged, and drowing out the other's suggestions with your obtuse finalities are king.

Now to make flash to validate my opinion.

To be honest, I think that that would be a pretty fair trade off. The new layout obsviously is going to look good, and I think that it will make up for the shortening of sigs. It might be a bit shorter, but at least there will be more room to work with latteraly!

At 10/4/06 03:12 PM, Evark wrote:

At 10/4/06 03:03 PM, bob wrote: And really, what have the loudmouths ever done for anyone?

Now to make flash to validate my opinion.

I'm just pointing out that sometimes users have to realize that it's not always about them. The current signatures would completely destroy the clean look of the new site, and most of the people complaining about this potential change contribute very little to the site as a whole.

Invent a way to make transparent Jpegs and you have a deal.

At 10/4/06 03:19 PM, MrMonopoly wrote: Invent a way to make transparent Jpegs and you have a deal.

One thought is to allow non-animated .gifs using a system that strips out all but the first frame of the file. Either way, the background of the site isn't changing, so the "transparent" part of your new .jpg could just be #25272d.

they are fine the way they are. do not change them.

I don't really care about the *.gif sigs. But I think that the size shouldn't be changed. They are perfect as is.

I hate the height as it is, it would completely suck in my mind if we had to short-ify all of our sigs. The horizontal tradeoff isn't really worth it, I'd rather have less horizontal room and more vertical room...

At 10/4/06 03:22 PM, bob wrote: One thought is to allow non-animated .gifs using a system that strips out all but the first frame of the file. Either way, the background of the site isn't changing, so the "transparent" part of your new .jpg could just be #25272d.

#24272B is the forum background. :\

I have your perfect tradeoff. Build a sig portal where offensive or crappy sigs are blammed. Good ones pass trial and get to go on the account, which can like store let's say 3 interchangeable sig pics. For the people who can't make their own there could be template NG ones that just put their name in. Think about it; I know I haven't.

At 10/4/06 03:22 PM, bob wrote: One thought is to allow non-animated .gifs using a system that strips out all but the first frame of the file. Either way, the background of the site isn't changing, so the "transparent" part of your new .jpg could just be #25272d.

25272d Is a different tone.

no Gifs means no moving tits.

:(

At 10/4/06 03:31 PM, Buddhist wrote:

At 10/4/06 03:22 PM, bob wrote: One thought is to allow non-animated .gifs using a system that strips out all but the first frame of the file. Either way, the background of the site isn't changing, so the "transparent" part of your new .jpg could just be #25272d.

#24272B is the forum background. :\

I probably should have verified the old color before I opened my big mouth. You're right.

The new color, however, will be #25272d. And it's pretty similar.

At 10/4/06 03:17 PM, bob wrote:

At 10/4/06 03:12 PM, Evark wrote:

At 10/4/06 03:03 PM, bob wrote: And really, what have the loudmouths ever done for anyone?

Now to make flash to validate my opinion.

I'm just pointing out that sometimes users have to realize that it's not always about them. The current signatures would completely destroy the clean look of the new site, and most of the people complaining about this potential change contribute very little to the site as a whole.

Oh I know. But none of the users can see that, because you guys aren't showing what the site looks like.

Personally, I think this sort of discussion would go over a lot better if you guys had waited to bring it to the users until AFTER the launch of the redesign. Because when the width can accomodate a sig that's 595 pixels wide, users will notice how awful all their current sigs look, and will be more willing to go with the change. As it stands currently, most of the naysayers to changing the dimensions thinks these changes are as a result of how the signatures look with THIS design of the site.

Even though I've got no problem with losing animation, it appears that a lot of the users do. I think it's clear that you guys should just change the dimensions appropriately, but give it a little bit of a wait on the animation aspect. Kinda ease everyone into these changes.

And I was just giving you a hard time anyway. : ) You guys have to take everyone's bitching with a grain of salt, when you ask for opinions, you're going to get them in the loudest and most out-spoken way.

At 10/4/06 03:31 PM, LordTrunks wrote: I hate the height as it is, it would completely suck in my mind if we had to short-ify all of our sigs. The horizontal tradeoff isn't really worth it, I'd rather have less horizontal room and more vertical room...

No, we should keep the Newgrounds tradition and keep the horizontal sigs. They look cool, and everybody has one.
If some people have massive pictures and others have smaller pictures. All the threds will look crap.

Yes it would! I've always liked the forums the way they are and I do not wish that they be majorly changed! }:<

I oppose any major changes to the BBS vehemently. It's the one forum that I think has it just right as it is.

At 10/4/06 02:09 PM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: Speaking of which, care on explaining your sig?

I WANNA SEE TOO!!!

AVERT YOUR EYES PEASENT!

Users shouldn't be designed around a system, the system should be designed around the users.

Gosh, I don't know. I just worked so hard on my signature. Every single pixel is nothing less than vital to the entire peice.

sarcasm. Cut the damn 20 pixels off.

At 10/4/06 03:33 PM, Yokumashu wrote: no Gifs means no moving tits.

(

SWEET FUCKING CHRIST, NO!!!!
No moving tits + no RoobyKillAll sigs + no "Stop That" + no dancing Lum = Hell
For the love of all that is holy, DO NOT eliminate animated sigs, please!