I thought you were being mean like Ant. I don't know who to believe now. Too much white space, not enough. I'll just take the damn thing off!

Nooo! Leave it on.

Just add a gap above his head, so it doesn't look hunched over in a cave when there's text above.

Or right align it would work too.

There bloody well is, just because you have a massive sig :C

wow, he's only half that tall on my screen. I'll cut him down instead of relying on doing it in the html.

Just to check we're seeing the same thing...

We are not seeing the same thing. I was actually going to recommend looking at Matts sig to see how to do a stickman at the right size, but he's got it right already, just not for me.

( I was late 'cus I got carried away working out how to bypass the "no embedding attachment" thing. )

What the hell are you still using FF for? That's like using IE these days. Madman.

Sig code....

<img src="http://www.techhideaway.com/pics/stickman2.jpg" border="0" height="40%" />

Does FF not like height="40%" or something?

Shut up. I tried Chrome ages ago and it was shit.

 

Though I did have to hunt out which addon had a memory leak recently. Managed to max out my memory, at one point FF was using about 1.2GB with not many tabs open. Fixed that though.

Hmm. Think Firefox might be correct actually.

 

Height is supposed to only work on block level elements, and image default to being inline, so it shouldn't be changing it.

 

Also, percentage heights are calculated based on the parent container - height 40% means 4/10th of the height of the parent object - which in the case of a signature box is not specifically set - it's a question of "40% of what?".

 

Seems Chrome is taking the sig box height pre-resize, calculating 40%, then setting the height of the image based on that, and then reducing the sig box to still only wrap the image.

 

Maybe.

 

So yeah: Ken, just use pixels instead. Or resize the image file.

 

And save it as a PNG, not JPG, and it'll not have the ugly artefacts.

Chrome was shit ages ago, aye. I hated it on first try. It's awesome now though.

Install it, install adthwart and there's no looking back. It's just better.

Is there a flashblock thingy?

Oh, and an exif viewer? and all the other stuff I use?

 

Also, does flash work better? It's been crashing fuckloads lately.

Flash is built-in to the damned thing. It still crashes too much.

There is an AdBlock port, which I think can be used on Flash too.

Oh, Xen mentioned Adthwart. I don't know what that is.

WHAT IS IT!? :@

What do you use Exif viewer for?

Occasionally I do want to do that, but it doesn't seem much hassle to grab an offline copy for when I do.

Someone should write a plugin thing that makes Firefox plugins work in Chrome.

What do you think I use it for?

 

I like to know what cameras and settings have been used to take photos :$

Ignore Pete, flash is not built in. But it seems to work fine. Yes it can be blocked by millions of addons, possibly including AdThwart. Definitely can by AdBlock.

What the hell is an exif? No idea. Oh ok that stuff. I looked it up. Yes.

While we're about it, Flash blockers.