"Small" Size allowed with Signatures

[RandysWay]

Wouldn't it be great if the [H]ard|Forum allowed you to use [SIZE=1] in your signatures? In my opinion this would be a great addition as it would allow users to make their signature a SMALL FONT or keep it as the default font as it is now. Of course, restraining the SIZE to ONLY 1 would restrain users from making an annoying, "Size 8" signature. This can make the usual signatures, such as mine, less annoying as they are smaller, discreet and petite. Plus, the signature rules would still apply.

Just look at the difference:


(REGULAR)

P4 3.0C @ 3.3GHz || ASUS P4C800-E Deluxe || Thermalright XP-90 + Panaflo 92mm H1BX || Audigy 2 ZS
2 GB Corsair TwinX XMS PC-3200C2PT || ATI Radeon 9700 Pro + VGA Silencer [Rev.2] @ 360/670
WD Raptor 10K SATA 74GB & WD Caviar 7.2k 200GB || 22" NEC MultiSync FP1355 || R520 Soon!


(SMALL)

P4 3.0C @ 3.3GHz || ASUS P4C800-E Deluxe || Thermalright XP-90 + Panaflo 92mm H1BX || Audigy 2 ZS
2 GB Corsair TwinX XMS PC-3200C2PT || ATI Radeon 9700 Pro + VGA Silencer [Rev.2] @ 360/670
WD Raptor 10K SATA 74GB & WD Caviar 7.2k 200GB || 22" NEC MultiSync FP1355 || R520 Soon!

-R

 

[apHytHiaTe]

Wouldn't it be great if the [H]ard|Forum allowed you to use in your signatures? In my opinion this would be a great addition as it would allow users to make their signature a SMALL FONT or keep it as the default font as it is now. Of course, restraining the SIZE to ONLY 1 would restrain users from making an annoying, "Size 8" signature. This can make the usual signatures, such as mine, less annoying as they are smaller, discreet and petite. Plus, the signature rules would still apply.

-R

Good idea, but this has only been suggested (and turned down) about 15 times over the past year.

 

[RandysWay]

Good idea, but this has only been suggested (and turned down) about 15 times over the past year.

Oh. D'oh! Well, make that 16 times.

 

[apHytHiaTe]

Oh. D'oh! Well, make that 16 times.

Actually, it probably came up only a couple of times, but I think that Idea was rejected after due consideration or something, because it would cause lots of extra work... the Forum is heavily modded, and more modifications mean trouble.

A moderator or admin may say something different, so keep the ears and eyes open!

 

[altec]

Good idea, but this has only been suggested (and turned down) about 15 times over the past year.

I think [H] is getting lazy thats why thay don't like ideas J/K.

 

[CommanderFrank]

The only thing close to any code being allowed in the signature is a smiley, It is best left as is. If you can make it smaller you can also make it bigger, bigger....well you get the idea. The mods and admins have enough to do as it is and becoming signature police isn't the dream job that it may sound like

.....#1 Law of Murphy is don't fix something that ain't broke

 

[InorganicMatter]

The only thing close to any code being allowed in the signature is a smiley, It is best left as is. If you can make it smaller you can also make it bigger, bigger....well you get the idea. The mods and admins have enough to do as it is and becoming signature police isn't the dream job that it may sound like

So there is no way to rig it so that you can DECREASE the size but you cannot INCREASE the size? Surely there is something out there that won't let you go over a certain font size.

 

[lomn75]

So there is no way to rig it so that you can DECREASE the size but you cannot INCREASE the size? Surely there is something out there that won't let you go over a certain font size.

You can rig font size limits, but (AFAIK) you can't rig a sig limit independently of a post limit.

as a fix, though, here's what could be done: HTML font styling could be inserted into the template file along with the line that prefaces sigs. Just don't count on seeing it implemented.

 

[RandysWay]

So there is no way to rig it so that you can DECREASE the size but you cannot INCREASE the size? Surely there is something out there that won't let you go over a certain font size.

This is what I was originally implying, MajorDomo. If its modified to only allow a decrease in text size, there would be no policing the signature(s). Wouldn't the code for the phpBB in the Signatures be separate from the thread phpBB? If so, could you easily edit out any text sizes larger than Size 1, or make the effect of Size 2, 3, 4, etc. the same size as Size 1?

 

[altec]

The only thing close to any code being allowed in the signature is a smiley, It is best left as is. If you can make it smaller you can also make it bigger, bigger....well you get the idea. The mods and admins have enough to do as it is and becoming signature police isn't the dream job that it may sound like

.....#1 Law of Murphy is don't fix something that ain't broke

Thats not true you can set a limit on how big the font can be.

 

[lomn75]

This is what I was originally implying, MajorDomo. If its modified to only allow a decrease in text size, there would be no policing the signature(s). Wouldn't the code for the phpBB in the Signatures be separate from the thread phpBB? If so, could you easily edit out any text sizes larger than Size 1, or make the effect of Size 2, 3, 4, etc. the same size as Size 1?

As I noted right above this post, it's extremely doubtful that you can cap post fonts at size X and sig fonts at size Y. It's a global setting. Additionally, sig setup is generally a global enable/disable code check, not a per-tag config.

Regardless, the salient point was mentioned in the very first reply: This has been suggested before, turned down, and the answer is not likely to (read: will not) change.

 

[CommanderFrank]

Bingo, we have a winner.

It all sounds so simple when stated, but when you get into the mechanics of the action, it becomes involved. If there was a need versus merely wanting something to change, it could happen. To change something for the sake of change itself ain't what's happening

the answer is not likely to (read: will not) change.

 

[pxc]

It all sounds so simple when stated, but when you get into the mechanics of the action, it becomes involved.

It *could* be simple in 2 cases. vB outputs this for the signature:

		<!-- sig -->

			<div>
				__________________<br />
				some sig....
			</div>
		<!-- / sig -->

Universally changing the signature size (not a bad idea, IMO) only requires changing <div> to <div class="smallfont">. Or if that is not desired, simply giving the <div> some id like <div id="sig"> allows firefox users to resize the signature by adding one line to userContent.css:

div#sig { font-size: 0.8em; }

 

[altec]

It *could* be simple in 2 cases. vB outputs this for the signature:

		<!-- sig -->

			<div>
				__________________<br />
				some sig....
			</div>
		<!-- / sig -->

Universally changing the signature size (not a bad idea, IMO) only requires changing <div> to <div class="smallfont">. Or if that is not desired, simply giving the <div> some id like <div id="sig"> allows firefox users to resize the signature by adding one line to userContent.css:

div#sig { font-size: 0.8em; }

Owned

 

[RandysWay]

It *could* be simple in 2 cases. vB outputs this for the signature:

		<!-- sig -->

			<div>
				__________________<br />
				some sig....
			</div>
		<!-- / sig -->

Universally changing the signature size (not a bad idea, IMO) only requires changing <div> to <div class="smallfont">. Or if that is not desired, simply giving the <div> some id like <div id="sig"> allows firefox users to resize the signature by adding one line to userContent.css:

div#sig { font-size: 0.8em; }

Sounds perfect.

 

[CommanderFrank]

I revert back to my post....'if it ain't broke don't fix it'. I can see no reason to make a change to accomodate someone's desire to have a smaller sized signature. With a board of this size (40k members) and average online population of between 800-1100 at any given time, the custom script already in place and the hacks and patches, it is a roll of the dice each time something is added, so it's not worth the risk unless it improves the overall performance of the board.

...and on the subject of being owned.....jsut because something works flawlessly somewhere else, doesn't mean it will work here without causing problems.