Images and links in signatures

[Revelation In Space]

I know it's possible to implement these because I've used forums like this in the past myself. Would it be possible to change that so an image link like the one below could be used in my sig? It's no big deal because you do allow it in the profile about and there is an option to give one's website URL in the information, but I just like to have that image as a sig.

 

[DaveC426913]

I know it's possible to implement these because I've used forums like this in the past myself. Would it be possible to change that so an image link like the one below could be used in my sig? It's no big deal because you do allow it in the profile about and there is an option to give one's website URL in the information, but I just like to have that image as a sig.

Why not make it your Avatar?

(And why does your webpage have a whole "References" section that just points to Wiki articles like the word "Science" and the word "Discovery" and what is a "Puppy").

 

[Revelation In Space]

Why not make it your Avatar?

I have an avatar, but anyway the logo banner dimensions wouldn't work as an avatar and it would only link to my profile here.

(And why does your webpage have a whole "References" section that just points to Wiki articles like the word "Science" and the word "Discovery" and what is a "Puppy").

Supplemental material for one thing, but also, the illustration the site is based upon comes from the perspective of a futuristic android compendium which differs a great deal from our current one. So, they, for example, don't think of things like science, government, nation, religion or puppies the same as we do. The supplementary material is more for them than the current reader. It's convenient that often the two overlap in that the most common definition of a thing isn't necessarily the most accurate, or in this case, relevant one. An expanded perspective may be useful to both the future and current.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have an avatar, but anyway the logo banner dimensions wouldn't work as an avatar and it would only link to my profile here.

You would reformat it.

Then just put the link in your sig.

Supplemental material for one thing,

Gotta say, I was more impressed when I thought it was a gallery for what I thought was your own artwork.

 

[Revelation In Space]

You would reformat it.
View attachment 6102

No.

Then just put the link in your sig.

Links and images aren't allowed in sigs.

Gotta say, I was more impressed when I thought it was a gallery for what I thought was your own artwork.

I would hazard a guess that you are more interested in art than other things included in the site.

 

[DaveC426913]

I would hazard a guess that you are more interested in art than other things included in the site.

The site is designed with the artwork at the forefront of attention and everything else secondary.
Everything above the fold is full-screen artwork, with anything else relegated to the area only if the user scrolls.
I'm just following what your site is advertizing as its selling feature.

 

[Revelation In Space]

The site is designed with the artwork at the forefront of attention and everything else secondary.
Everything above the fold is full-screen artwork, with anything else relegated to the area only if the user scrolls.
I'm just following what your site is advertizing as its selling feature.

It's a personal site. It serves no real purpose outside of my own entertainment. I don't care about SEO, I don't advertise other than linking to it from forums I post on and I don't actually expect any interest outside of my own. The yearly hosting is due in October on the paid site. The mirror site is exactly the same except for it is free. I will most likely not renew the paid hosting and take the paid site with domain name down. The free I may leave it alone and never do anything with it.

It does also have a mobile version, though really it looks the same as the desktop, just smaller for the phone. Less bells and whistles. It also has a text only forum where articles on the subject I've written over the last 30 years are more substantive than the eye candy of the website itself. But no one is interested in websites, the Bible or religion anymore. It doesn't really matter much. For me this sort of thing is just a hobby.

Mobile

Forum

 

[DaveC426913]

Links and images aren't allowed in sigs.

You can put a link in, it's just not "hot".

It does also have a mobile version, though really it looks the same as the desktop, just smaller for the phone. Less bells and whistles.

Have you considered making just one version and making it responsive (i.e. responds to viewer size)? Great little skillset to add to a resume.

 

[Revelation In Space]

You can put a link in, it's just not "hot".

Yes, I've done that as have you.

Have you considered making just one version and making it responsive (i.e. responds to viewer size)? Great little skillset to add to a resume.

Don't care about resumes, it's a personal website. That means it looks and behaves the way I want it to. I don't care about the mobile, that was only made because I've been asked and I kept it really simple. Fucking around with passing fads of so-called responsiveness would make the desktop version look like I don't want it to. And it would be more hassle than I care to undertake.

 

[DaveC426913]

Don't care about resumes, it's a personal website.

I didn't mean your website on a resume; I meant learning a marketable skill.

Fucking around with passing fads of so-called responsiveness

Passing fads? Mobile phones are passing fads? Man, you sure play the long game...

would make the desktop version look like I don't want it to.

No it wouldn't. The whole point of responsiveness is that it looks like what you want on any devices you want. You can have exposed menus and giant pics on your desktop, while still having hamburger menus and small (or no) pics on your mobile.

(I'm not trying to convince you to do anything, just resetting your impressions of what responsiveness is. )

 

[Revelation In Space]

I didn't mean your website on a resume; I meant learning a marketable skill.

I know what you meant, and I'm not interested in a marketable skill. I'm retired. I do this as a hobby. Even forums like this have no purpose for me other than to discuss a subject I find interesting. What I'm saying is that there isn't a financial or ideological incentive.

Passing fads? Mobile phones are passing fads? Man, you sure play the long game...

Yes. And, well, not only that but I'm not interested personally in mobile phones for accessing the Internet. I only use mobile devices to check the design. I can't stand to use them. I like my huge monitor and 5.1 surround sound. I want big and dark. It isn't important to me to be concerned about visitor preferences. I don't mean to be snarky, it just isn't a realistic concern for me at present. It used to be and I would do all of that stuff, CEO, validation of HTML and CSS, spending hundreds of dollars on advertising. This current website is just a hobby. It could very well be gone tomorrow.

No it wouldn't. The whole point of responsiveness is that it looks like what you want on any devices you want. You can have exposed menus and giant pics on your desktop, while still having hamburger menus and small (or no) pics on your mobile.

(I'm not trying to convince you to do anything, just resetting your impressions of what responsiveness is. )

I understand. I know what responsiveness is. It's making a website with that first and foremost in mind. It isn't possible, or at least not practical for me to think I can make responsiveness look like I want it to. It doesn't work like that; it works the other way around. I don't care about responsiveness. And my remark on fads has to do with that. Methods of achieving some sense of conformity in design are of course, going to evolve. This is what your website is supposed to look like. This looks good but not the same on various devices, resolutions, browsers, etc. etc.

If my site stays up it will look the same 10 years from now.

 

[Revelation In Space]

I screwed that up. Obviously. The following was my response but I somehow posted it in Dave's quote: "Yes. And, well, not only that but I'm not interested personally in mobile phones for accessing the Internet. I only use mobile devices to check the design. I can't stand to use them. I like my huge monitor and 5.1 surround sound. I want big and dark. It isn't important to me to be concerned about visitor preferences. I don't mean to be snarky, it just isn't a realistic concern for me at present. It used to be and I would do all of that stuff, CEO, validation of HTML and CSS, spending hundreds of dollars on advertising. This current website is just a hobby. It could very well be gone tomorrow."