Page 1 of 2
My selection of sigs...
Posted: Mon 03 Apr 2006 2:50 am
by Knight
Not my best sig work lol, but to my defence I did these with no lenses in to see what I could produce based on some older designs that I revamped ... Probably way to big to use around here, so just 'showing' some left-handed sigs
But I have a gallery of sigs, erm, well I used to over 500 or so, then gave up because I think I covered every possible design, tweak, style, layout there was as far as sigs are concerned. Starting off in graphics is was useful to a degree to test an idea before fully implimenting it, at least as time went on thats what I started to use them for.
Well, anyway, I haven't been around in ages, so just thought I'd make my presence inventively felt
Posted: Mon 03 Apr 2006 7:58 am
by John Smith
...and you've certainly done that!
Welcome back!
Posted: Mon 03 Apr 2006 8:52 am
by Andrew MacLean
Knight
good work!
but, what makes these sigs sinister?
(for those who do not have English as their first language, "sinister" means "left-handed", as opposed to "dexter" which means "right-handed"
Andrew
Posted: Mon 03 Apr 2006 12:24 pm
by Knight
They're sinister because the text-fonts are all on the left hand side of the designs which are offset (although balanced) with slightly heavier graphic content on the right or opposing corner - these tend to flow better as the capital leads in from the left - as with normal reading and western style a purely pedantic element in something that would normally be overlooked.
In those the text is the focal point so the attention is naturally drawn toward it.
Mostly I've found, if the text or information is prime, then it is better off on the left, but when the logo of graphic is the main part, eg trying to make a statement or catch attention I switch it around - mostly the same applies to websites that have the menu on the left, making it normally easier to navigate, and its more obvious if you go to a site with the menu on the right it tends to feel a bit awkward for most.
Posted: Mon 03 Apr 2006 12:56 pm
by Andrew MacLean
So this is quite a science.
I see exactly what youmean, now that you have drawn my attention to it.
Andrew
Posted: Mon 03 Apr 2006 4:49 pm
by Emma_Marie
how do you get a sig on your name?
Posted: Mon 03 Apr 2006 5:12 pm
by chrism
Personally, I've usually been fairly anti-sigs... at least ones that are more than 2-3 lines...
Though I've come around slightly to yours, Andrew, being much smaller than many I see out there. When done in a reasonable size, they can look OK.
Its sort of a pet peeve of mine... when people have sigs that are bigger than the message they are posting.
Posted: Mon 03 Apr 2006 5:23 pm
by Andrew MacLean
chrism
Thank you for the compliment! My 'sinister' sigs are all the work of a certain Knight of anonymous provenance.
I'll pass on your good wishes ... in fact I already have!
Andrew
Posted: Mon 03 Apr 2006 5:27 pm
by John Smith
Chris,
I agree entirely. That's why I have quite a tough policy on sigs. Nothing more than 40 pixels high.
It allows expression but keeps a nice uniformity.
Still, If (as I am being persuaded) I allow uploadable avatars, then I will instantly ban all sig images.
Posted: Mon 03 Apr 2006 7:15 pm
by Knight
John Smith wrote:...Still, If (as I am being persuaded) I allow uploadable avatars, then I will instantly ban all sig images.
Why would we want personalised avatars, if we were free with more room to run with a little 40px or so sig? Now that's something I don't really get. If sigs are banned no one has seen the full on campaign of graphical persuasion that I will perpetuate! har har
To say, though, I feel that avatars are a feature of the board, something we're given, it's the signature area that we personalise - which I've always advocated mainly because there's more space and done right, slim and tight can really compliment things.