path too deep

From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)22 Nov 2010 21:48
To: Lucy (X3N0PH0N) 10 of 58
You think?
From: ANT_THOMAS22 Nov 2010 22:00
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 11 of 58
Crop your sig, get rid of some of the white space!
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)22 Nov 2010 22:08
To: ANT_THOMAS 12 of 58
Had a couple extra breaks in there for some reason. TY
From: ANT_THOMAS22 Nov 2010 22:12
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 13 of 58
A little better but there's still loads of white space top and bottom of the actual image.
From: Lucy (X3N0PH0N)23 Nov 2010 00:04
To: ANT_THOMAS 14 of 58
Not here there isn't.
From: Peter (BOUGHTONP)23 Nov 2010 00:06
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 15 of 58
Your sig is too bunched up, can you add some whitespace?
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)23 Nov 2010 00:24
To: Peter (BOUGHTONP) 16 of 58
It was on sale, fuckin white space police! Give a brother a break!
From: Peter (BOUGHTONP)23 Nov 2010 00:26
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 17 of 58
:?
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)23 Nov 2010 00:31
To: Peter (BOUGHTONP) 18 of 58
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!
From: Peter (BOUGHTONP)23 Nov 2010 00:36
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 19 of 58
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.
From: ANT_THOMAS23 Nov 2010 00:41
To: Lucy (X3N0PH0N) 20 of 58
There bloody well is, just because you have a massive sig :C



From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)23 Nov 2010 00:47
To: ANT_THOMAS 21 of 58
wow, he's only half that tall on my screen. I'll cut him down instead of relying on doing it in the html.
From: Lucy (X3N0PH0N)23 Nov 2010 00:48
To: ANT_THOMAS 22 of 58
Just to check we're seeing the same thing...
EDITED: 16 Aug 2011 05:33 by X3N0PH0N
From: Peter (BOUGHTONP)23 Nov 2010 00:52
To: ANT_THOMAS 23 of 58
Attachments:
From: ANT_THOMAS23 Nov 2010 00:53
To: Lucy (X3N0PH0N) 24 of 58
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.
Attachments:
From: Peter (BOUGHTONP)23 Nov 2010 00:55
To: ANT_THOMAS 25 of 58
( I was late 'cus I got carried away working out how to bypass the "no embedding attachment" thing. )
From: Lucy (X3N0PH0N)23 Nov 2010 00:57
To: ANT_THOMAS 26 of 58
What the hell are you still using FF for? That's like using IE these days. Madman.
From: ANT_THOMAS23 Nov 2010 00:57
To: ALL27 of 58
Sig code....

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


Does FF not like height="40%" or something?
EDITED: 23 Nov 2010 00:58 by ANT_THOMAS
From: ANT_THOMAS23 Nov 2010 01:00
To: Lucy (X3N0PH0N) 28 of 58

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.

From: Peter (BOUGHTONP)23 Nov 2010 01:05
To: ANT_THOMAS 29 of 58

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.

EDITED: 23 Nov 2010 01:06 by BOUGHTONP