An email signature should be HTML, with a small hosted image inside it, rather than one big image. An HTML signature keeps your links clickable and your contact details selectable, and it still works when the picture is blocked. A single image signature loses all of that the moment it fails to load. Here is the comparison.
What an image-only signature costs you
Saving your whole signature as one picture seems tidy, but it has real downsides:
- No working links. A picture cannot hold a clickable email address, phone link or website. People have to retype your details.
- No selectable text. Recipients cannot copy your name or address out of an image.
- It vanishes when images are off. Some clients hide remote images by default, leaving an empty gap where your whole signature should be.
- It can look blurry. Images that are not sized for high-resolution screens come out soft.
Why HTML is the safer choice
An HTML signature is built from real text and links, with a small image only where one helps, such as a photo or logo. If the image is blocked, the rest still reads cleanly and the links still work. This is the format the signature generator produces, using tables and inline styles so it renders the same across the major clients.
When a small image still makes sense
A logo or headshot adds a professional touch, and that is worth keeping. The trick is to host that single image at a public web address and place it inside the HTML, rather than turning the entire signature into a picture. If the image breaks, see why a signature image is not showing.
The short answer
Use an HTML signature with text-based details and one small hosted image. You get reliable links, copyable text, and a layout that holds up where image-only signatures fall apart. The technical side is in HTML email signature tips.
Build one the right way with the email signature generator.
