Originally Posted by Alexander Turcic
It's somewhat difficult to define "more suitable". For someone who only uploads a signature picture without text attached to it, the measurement would probably work well. What did you have in mind?
I reduced the current image down to 67 X 50. That looks to be as small as possible and still get an idea of what the picture is. On smaller monitors and laptops it may be too small to tell what it is. I'm sure some only "click the pic" if the image looks inviting.
Originally Posted by HarryT
If you want mixed text and graphics, the best way to do it is to use a graphics program to add the text to the graphic. Look at WT.Sharpe's signature for an example of this.
My total height matches his. That I could live with. However using a static image in my case would be less than desirable, as I frequently change the quote, or the picture, and not always at the same time.
As I said earlier, the signature graphics on MR is set to automatically reduced images to 133 x 100. I would imagine that changing it to 67 X 50 (or what ever you guys can live with) should just be a value adjustment for that field as opposed to hard coding it.
On the one hand you have some that want little, if any, space taken up in the signature area. On the other extreme you have some that have loaded up the signature area with flashing book covers.
My view (obviously) is that some non-animated graphics and a limited amount of text can add to the visual appeal of MR. But given the choice between a very small graphic OR a limited amount of plain text I would choose neither.
Whatever the consensus of the greenies
may be, it'll be. But I would vote against a bland homogeneous mixture where one post differs from any other only by it's length and the posters avatar.