HRWiki talk:Signature

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Please read the discussion at HRWiki talk:Standards (Sig standards) before posting on this talk page.

I think we could stand to emphasize using either the standard or the "Nickname" box more and the templates and subpages less. Wikipedia says that templates should be used only if you can't make the sig the way you want with the "Nickname" box. Their reason is because if you change it, it changes every instance of it so they request that users who do use templates use the subst: command. But here, that's the reason some users (myself included) like to use them. We like having them all uniform. I don't think policy needs to be changed, I just think this page could be worded to better express what we've already decided. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 03:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Length is uncontrollable 2 Questions 2.1 Length 2.2 Images 3 Font problem

[edit] Length is uncontrollable

One problem I see from time to time is that different users use different font sizes, whether it's the browser's default or perhaps a replacement font used by a user's system in place of a missing font. Therefore, there's no real way currently to control the length of sigs in others' browsers. A character's size and any number of pixels might differ, at times dramatically. I don't have time at present to offer an example, but it's a well-known usability issue.

I suggest a few changes be considered which would be more complicated than "fit the sig in the box" but would be more realistic regarding web rendering.

• A sig without images should not be longer than a certain number of ems.
• That sig's rendering at a specific default font size and screen resolution should also not be larger than a specified number of pixels.
• If pics are added, they must not allow the sig to exceed the second restriction above.

This might be too cumbersome, but I'd like to discuss this. (I won't be able to respond within a few days regularly, so please do not rush to decision.) - Qermaq - (^T/C)  09:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We came to the 180 px limit following the discussion found at HRWiki talk:Standards#Sig standards. Have a look at that for our reasoning, and let us know what you think. -- Tom 21:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The 180px limit is the benchmark, but if a sig is just a little over that, then we're not going to throw a fuss. These restrictions are to give us something to point to whenever somebody tries to use a 250px signature. In addition, although it's possible for a signature to be rendered drastically differently from one browser to another, in practice there is a version of any particular sig that most users here see, and it is that version that we use to measure against the limit. — It's dot com 23:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Revisiting this after a long time. See, the whole concept of a "180px" or a "250px" sig is flawed at the outset. The number of pixels used by a sig is determined as much at the user client as it is at the coding level. Many times I've seen complaints about sig length when the sig is fine on my computer - the reason being that I do not have the font installed, for example, and so I am seeing my default font which is narrower than the one the user requested. If you have a large typeface selected for your default, many sigs are going to be over the prescribed limits for you which are fine for someone using the browser defaults. Basically, the differences in browser realization of text mean that there's no real way to control the eventual pixel size of a sig. Comments welcome. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  20:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I never liked being picky at people for this kind of thing. This should definitely be a common sense/courtesy type issue, because not everyone's browsing specs are the same. Don't make the sigs ridiculously long, and certainly don't make them taller than the standard text. (Common sense/courtesy = don't put more crap in your signature than what you need; Abbrev-ing is encouraged with multiple links; et cetera.) —BazookaJoe 20:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, all I'm saying is that policy should speak to the truth, not to the illusion. The illusion is that we can control our sig's px impression. The truth is that we cannot, but we can be considerate of the space these sigs take up. I'd like the sig policy to take reality into account. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  20:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to create a policy that works on all major browsers and unfortunatly doesn't fix minor browsers problems. I mean, we're not gonna fix a policy for some guy's home made browser that's only used by literally three people, are we? Bluebry 21:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you get the point. I could come over your house, and, after depleting your beer stocks, I could alter your browser's defaults to make nearly every sig larger than 180px. Or, I could make it so any sigs you currently see at larger than 180px are OK now. The point is that the stuff that determines sig size is as much on your computer as it is on the original user's. Policy that ignores that is abominable policy. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  21:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

1:My beer stocks are too mighty to be depleted. 2: You make no sense. COuld you try and make some sense? Bluebry 21:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What precisely eludes you? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  21:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Just change the font size of your Internet browser and compare it to Image:sigbox.png and you'll see what we mean. —BazookaJoe 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Change it to what? And why should I change it, it works for me as is! I don't think you see the real problem. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  21:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you, Qermaq. ;) —BazookaJoe 21:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

...So, we're making a policy for people too stubborn to change their default font size? Bluebry 21:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the policy doesn't consider those who have a non-standard font size. What if I made a sig that fit that box for me, but it was too big for someone else, and they told me to change it? —BazookaJoe 21:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude. Some people have eye problems. Others have issues with reading certain fonts. This ios not an issue with stubbornness, it's a matter of accessibility. Fact is, browser defaults are overrideable for damn good reasons, and we'd be dumbheads to make policy which makes those important modifications irrelevent. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  21:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

...? Okay... I'm still REALLY confused... so... I'm giving up... but first, I'm gonna try to go with what i understand: 1: I see no way sig length is a problem in relation to eye problems, because the person would probably not be able to read, or is able to read perfectly the distorted text they've been reading for years. But, hey, I might just be a bit biased here. 2: Fanstuff uses a character-based sig length standard, which I find would stop all "your sig is too long" complaints. Bluebry 21:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

People who have severe eye problems use really big text in order to be able to read. Did you try what I told you to? Make the text of your browser much bigger, and you will see that your sig no longer fits the policy box. —BazookaJoe 21:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Fanstuff requirements, so I cannot comment. A non-PX policy would be wise, I think, allowing for user alterations. A full explanation would be way too huge for here, but it's essentially this: Some people cannot read the browser default text, so they modify it somehow. Exactly how is not known. So we kinda have to realize that we cannot predict the user environment. Does that make more sense? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  21:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

EDIT:Okay, now that I see... My idea for option #2 would still FIX that problem. The, uh, the character length restraint. 3 characters is 3 characters no matter what size. Bluebry 22:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And that's not a bad idea either. We'll remember that. —BazookaJoe 22:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This text is the same size as this text? The text is the same, but how I declared it differs. In various browsers at various settings, the text displayed might differ as starkly as this. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  22:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

...I'm confused again... anyways, look at the third section of Dis page, if you please. Bluebry 22:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Please be more precise as to what I should be reading. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  22:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not concerned with the fact that, if you really try, you can configure your system to make all signatures violate the policy. What we are concerned with is how a signature renders on the majority of browsers that are used to visit the wiki under normal conditions. The pixel definition is a useful tool to help us make a call, and it works well under most circumstances. Any time when it wouldn't work would be so infrequent as to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. — It's dot com 03:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

[edit] Length

I may as well just make a question section of the talk page for if anyone else has questions about their signature's conformity.

My question: does the 180x20 pixel size include the timestamp? If so, then how much space should we usually have dedicated for the timestamp? --68.92.250.78 01:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the timestamp is usually longer than the 180 already by itself. — Defender1031*Talk 01:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Is it reasonable for me to assume that an image of the words "Johnny Jupiter" with no actual text is out?--.Johnny Jupiter! ^talk _cont 00:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's right, because images are harder to search for. It's the same principle as why we always spell things like Easter eggs out in type instead of using a standalone image. — It's dot com 21:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Font problem

Unless you have the font that the user chose for his signature, it shows up all wrong. Is there a way to fix that? My sig's font is Chalkdust, and I don't know who's computer it doesn't show up on. Please help. — MichaelXX2

The best way to correct the problem of a font not showing up for everyone is to not use a font that not everyone has. --DorianGray 21:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)