SOTM#170 - Rayman Legends

[NyaNyaLily]

Screw it, since we're already having a satanic sig contest, I'll send this in again:

[Master]

Oh lord, I'm flash backing to the horror that was early 2015.

[#Rubber mark#]

I don't think it's too much of a 'strict' thing, but more of a way of making it even and fair for contestants.

Why do we have to make the signatures 285 x 750 px can't we just leave the sig size how it is because why does it matter? Can't we just do what we want?

[Keane]

hrey id like to enter this pizza please thank you

[incognito]

Screw it, since we're already having a satanic sig contest, I'll send this in again:

I know what you do of your internets at night now.

[Shadowrayman]

I don't think it's too much of a 'strict' thing, but more of a way of making it even and fair for contestants.

Why do we have to make the signatures 285 x 750 px can't we just leave the sig size how it is because why does it matter? Can't we just do what we want?

I agree, I can only make good sigs by making the sig bigger

[Serza5]

Ok let's take a look at how big 750 x 285 px is :

Do you seriously think that this is too small a size to work on with sigs? Hell this height is rather large given that it used to be 250 px before people wanted a bigger limit on that.

[NyaNyaLily]

Wow, I didn't know you could submit 2 entries!

[Serza5]

You didn't see that.

[#Rubber mark#]

I agree, I can only make good sigs by making the sig bigger

Somehow I knew you'd agree with this.

Ok let's take a look at how big 750 x 285 px is :

Do you seriously think that this is too small a size to work on with sigs? Hell this height is rather large given that it used to be 250 px before people wanted a bigger limit on that.

Can you tell me what size it needs to be in cm and width? Because my computer doesn't use px height.

[Serza5]

In cm : 19.1 x 7.2

[#Rubber mark#]

In cm : 19.1 x 7.2

I think 79.1 cm x 47.2 cm would be better, I can only make good sigs by making the sig bigger.

[Tomazo]

In cm : 19.1 x 7.2

I think 79.1 cm x 47.2 cm would be better, I can only make good sigs by making the sig bigger.

I agree, this forum is so strict, we can't unleash our creativity with such limitations.
Bigger signature = more possibilities.

[NyaNyaLily]

Yeah, I agree. A signature like this would totally not be too long.

[Ambidextroid]

I submit this

[Master]

Hmm, speaking as a normal member, given how screen sizes have increased over the years, perhaps allowing for larger sizes might be worthwhile.

However, this is supposed to be Signature of the Month, if there's no size restriction it might as well just be an art contest. What's the average screen size these days?

[Ambidextroid]

My monitor's 1920x1080. I think the issue is that some people make more square signatures than rectangular ones, so even if your sig isn't that big overall it could be just over the height limit. For my JSR sig for example I had to shave off the top and bottom, not because it's a huge signature but because it's much more square than rectangular.

[Serza5]

Hmm, speaking as a normal member, given how screen sizes have increased over the years, perhaps allowing for larger sizes might be worthwhile.

The problem I have with this is while desktop computers may have gotten bigger you also now have to consider mobile screens. Granted i'm not sure just how many users are on mobile but I am sure that having big signatures on mobile is not going to look that great.

I think the issue is that some people make more square signatures than rectangular ones, so even if your sig isn't that big overall it could be just over the height limit. For my JSR sig for example I had to shave off the top and bottom, not because it's a huge signature but because it's much more square than rectangular.

This I would consider working around although as much as the square ones aren't as big it's still going to have a large height limit and that is essentially what makes posts appear more larger than the width does if that makes sense. Again though if you suggest an appropiate square dimension limit for sigs i'll consider it.

[Ambidextroid]

Granted i'm not sure just how many users are on mobile but I am sure that having big signatures on mobile is not going to look that great.

As far as I know on mobile all images are automatically shrunk to fit the screen width, so if anything wider sigs would probably be harder to see than squarer ones.
As for a square-ish size limit, I think adding more than one maximum size would be a bit confusing (especially seeing as how so many new members already get the current dimensions wrong) but something around 325 to 350 square would be good.
And about people getting the dimensions wrong, maybe that should be higher up on the rules list? Right now it looks like a block of text and the size limit rule, probably the most often broken one, is near the bottom at the end of a sentence. People would probably pay more attention if it was right at the top in big letters, or something like that.

[PluMGMK]

Personally I think signatures in general shouldn't be square. I think that an image "signature" should mirror its written namesake and be wider than it is tall, as written words tend to be.

As far as I know on mobile all images are automatically shrunk to fit the screen width

I believe so.