Skip to main content

    Filter by Idea status

    Filter by category

    1121 Ideas

    Improve Wet-sign feature (Print & Sign / Upload) Recipient ExperienceIdea Submitted

    While the electronic signing experience is strong, the current Wet-Sign (Print & Sign / Upload) recipient workflow introduces significant usability challenges that negatively impact completion rates, client experience, and operational efficiency.After internal review and engagement with DocuSign Support, we have confirmed these issues are product-level limitations, not configuration-related. We would like to propose enhancements to improve clarity, reduce user error, and better support regulated workflows that require ink signatures.Key Pain PointsMisleading UI cues: Wet-sign envelopes look and behave too similarly to e-sign envelopes. “Sign Here” tags still appear, suggesting digital signing is possible even when it is not. Hidden required actions: Critical steps (Download → Print & Sign → Upload) are not intuitive and are often missed. Inconsistent mental model: Clients regularly receive a mix of e-sign and wet-sign envelopes and struggle to distinguish the required action between them. Insufficient in-product guidance: Email instructions alone are not enough; users need contextual clarity at the moment they interact with the envelope. No enforcement guardrails: Users can attempt to “Finish” the envelope without completing the mandatory upload, leading to confusion and support intervention.Requested EnhancementsWe propose that DocuSign evaluate improvements such as:1. Clear visual differentiationProminent banner or label such as “Wet Signature Required – Print, Sign, and Upload” Suppression of digital signing affordances (e.g., “Sign Here” tabs) when the envelope requires a wet signature2. Unavoidable, in-context guidanceA step‑based flow outlining the exact process Instructional modal or persistent banner displayed upon opening the envelope3. Improved visibility of mandatory actionsClear prompts directing the user to download, print, and upload Reduction of reliance on hidden menu options4. Guardrails to prevent errorsControls that block or warn when a user tries to complete the envelope without uploading the signed document Removal of misleading “1 required field left” messages that imply electronic signing is necessaryDesired OutcomesLower abandonment and confusion for wet-sign envelopes Higher completion rates and fewer support tickets Better alignment with compliance requirements for regulated signatures Strengthened end‑to‑end experience for organizations frequently handling mixed e‑sign and wet‑sign workflowsThese improvements would greatly enhance the usability of DocuSign’s wet-sign capability and support organizations with regulated or jurisdictionally constrained signature workflows.

    daniel.krcmarDigital Collaborator

    Allow Removing or Setting “No Access” for Users in Step Update SecurityIdea Submitted

    Currently, when using Step Update Security, it is only possible to add security groups or users. However, there is no option to remove an existing user or explicitly set their permission to No Access.In our use case, we want to apply security to a specific folder and ensure that the CLM user does not have access. With the current functionality, the CLM user cannot be removed or restricted through Step Update Security, which limits our ability to properly control folder permissions.Requested enhancement: Allow removal of existing users/groups when using Step Update Security. Allow explicitly setting “No Access” for a specific user (e.g., CLM user group). Enable administrators to fully control folder-level security through the step configuration. Benefit:This enhancement would provide more flexible and complete security management, allowing administrators to ensure that unwanted users (such as CLM system users) can be removed or restricted when configuring folder permissions. Use CaseWhen the workflow creates a new supplier folder and the “Finance” subfolder, the security settings must be automated so that only the “Finance Security” group has access.To meet confidentiality requirements, access for default groups (for example, the “CLM User” group) must be removed so that these users cannot view the folder.Current Platform BehaviorBased on the current platform design, the Update Security step in a CLM workflow is additive only. This means it can grant permissions to additional users or groups, but it cannot remove existing permissions, remove inherited permissions, or set a group's access level to “No Access.”

    BCTNew Voice

    Improve function of Title field for users with multiple job titlesIdea Submitted

    Hello,We’ve been running into an issue with some users who have multiple unrelated job titles. In Manage Profile, users can opt to either set a Job Title or leave it blank. However, if they ever sign a document that includes a Title field, Docusign will automatically save that value to the Manage Profile screen without notifying the user that it has done so. (This is primarily an issue when someone leaves the field blank under Manage Profile, especially if they’ve done so intentionally because they have multiple titles.)That value then shows up in the certificate of every future envelope, unless the user manually changes it every time they “switch hats” to sign for one job title or the other.Example:A user is both “Head of Dept A” and “Employee of Dept B” The user signs a document relating to Dept B. This document has a Title field, so they list “Employee of Dept B” Docusign saves this Title value to their profile without telling the user. Later, the user receives a different document to sign that relates to Dept A. This document does not have a Title field. When the user signs, it will still list them in the certificate as “Employee of Dept B,” because that’s what’s Docusign saved to their profile in step 3. However, they won’t be aware of this unless they look at the certificate.This is causing confusion for customers when they review the certificate, especially when the two job titles are very different.One suggestion would be to give users the choice of whether to save the Title to their profile or not when they’re filling out a Title field.