Forum:New sig fad?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > New sig fad?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6187 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Hard refresh your browsers and tell me what you think...

» Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 08:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(On Mozilla variants (including Firefox), I believe it's shift-ctl-R. The sig may not work in IE, so I left a link to my sig in there.)

Nifty! I think I'll steal it!  Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 08:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC) ps: It works in IE.

That is neat! Stealable? ---Rev. Isra (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

STEAL. o_o. That totally kicks ass. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 08:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's stealable! Why else would I mention the possibility of a fad? ;-)

Use class="sigexpand" for the hover that expands the sig, and class="sighidden" for the section that is only visible when hovered. The span using class="sighidden" needs to be inside the span using class="sigexpand" for it to work right.

Enjoy. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 08:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yoink. And to the server: kneel before my sig-chnanging might! -Rev. Isra (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems it is possible to use multiple hidden sections. I have added both a prefix and a suffix. --The Divine Fluffalizer - [t m] 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work. I admit that it's a bit disorienting, though. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 10:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, this trick was devised by Splarka's Cthulhu-like tentacles. If anyone ever wondered why some of us are so sad about not having him around anymore, this is a prime example... » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 08:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bwahahaha!!!  Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 08:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oooooooh, shiny thingy... —Hinoa talk.kun 09:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice trick, though I should point out that Internet Explorer (6, not sure about 7) will not expand these. This is because it doesn't apply the :hover attribute to anything but <a> tags. As a lot of people still use this browser, so make sure your "minimised" sig is still identifiable.
I'm also going to be mean and point out that Splarka didn't invent CSS popups, and that a certain another uncyclopedian came up with this last May, (including a method for getting it to work in IE6) but didn't want to suggest changing it to everyone as it involved changing the site's css rules, and because they felt they were still too new to be suggesting stuff like that at the time. So there! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 14:13, 16 Jan 2007 I made something remotely useful! iv made a template which uses it, i thought it might be useful somehow.--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 16:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I considered using it for spoilers, too...

Spang: How does it fix the IE6 problem?

Thanks. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 19:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it's more of a horrible workaround, to be honest. Just the same method, applied to links only with the popup inside the link, then the links are disguised as normal text. It's what the original CSS popups method did (though when I read my comment over it makes it sound like I came up with that... oops). Though it's probably not needed now as IE6 is going out of fashion quicker than ever, and especially as it's IE that gets it wrong, not the code. It was still most popular by far when I did all that, so had to consider it. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 20:38, 16 Jan 2007

I'll be the first to jump on the anti-sig-trends-bandwagon-trend by leaving my sig unchanged. Still, neat hack. That spoiler template could be useful. --User:Nintendorulez 21:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

...only if it's formatted more better. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 21:25, 16 Jan 2007

I'm also jumping on the anti-sig bandwagon. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 22:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not conforming to this new fad in sigs. I am sticking with the sig I stole from Ghelae. --General Insineratehymn 22:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll stick with a sig that looks like I put virtually no thought into it whatsoever.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy doodoo Batman! I saw one of these seconds ago and considered making it a super awesome fad! Rock on! -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 22:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent timing, especially with my slowly simmering irritation on what I see as some moderate & growing problems with sigs. Those problems being length, height, line wrapping, major disruptions to conversation flow and sigs moderately to significantly different than the username they are attached to. While I'm all for personal expression and creativity, the point of a sig is to identify to others who wrote the preceding text, and I'm worried that many are failing to do that without disrupting the rest of the page. I may try to play around with it myself. Gotta cut mine down, 'ya know. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01/16 23:16

Well if the point is to identify to others, is it possible for sigs to be too short? There's this one guy I've seen who just uses a single letter for his. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:26, 16 Jan 2007

. . . and then there's the twit with the itsy bitsy, teeny weeny headshot. What a vain prick!

  Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 07:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not bad. I dislike the ones though that use images that seemingly have no relation to the user. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 23:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's my lame rip-off version. --»The Acceptable Cainad (Fnord) 02:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Heya  –              Smiddle             

Cool, you merged his and mine :D —Braydie at 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is this "his" guy?  –              Smiddle             

I run on IE7 and it works! Woohoo! (Not sure about the js though) -Kjhf!- (feeling chatty?) 20:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok... what did I do wrong?--<<>> 23:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Jumping into the bandwagon. Yeeepeeey! -- herr doktor needsApistol  [scream!] 18:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A problem with these sigs you may take note of...

There's an issue with these sigs that I only just realised/noticed, in that when the expanded part of the sig wraps to a new line, that part of it is essentially unclickable. See fig. 1, below; when the mouse moves away, the links disappear. This is made worse by the fact that a lot of them have the "nowrap" attribute added, so the whole thing wraps rather than just a part of it.

So, keep in mind with these sigs that they may not always be clickable, and that the longer the expanding section, the more likely it is to wrap and be unclickable. I would suggest making sure there is at least a link to your userpage in the always-visible bit, and removing the "nowrap" attribute. Or just do nothing, whatever. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:29, 19 Jan 2007

You can just hold down the expandy thing as you click which will keep it open, allowing you to move down to the sig. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 16:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I knew about this, which is why my paw links to my home page and my expander links to my signature. Problem solved before it was found. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 2007.01.21.01:43

Heh

Check this out!
DID YOU THINK I WOULD MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU? Click here for hawt prawn!  –              Smiddle             

Hovering and moving to the right is cheating.  –              Smiddle             

Browsers that can't handle the expand feature is cheating too  –              Smiddle             

"Mom! Smiddle playing keep-away with links again!"--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

yawn, presses tab button a few times, done, HA!.--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Damn.  –              Smiddle