Skip to main content

    672 Ideas

    Feature Request: Recipient-Level Control for Sending Completed Documents as Email Attachments (attach documents to completion email setting)Parked

    Hello DocuSign team and community,We’re currently encountering a permissions challenge that’s affecting our workflows, and I’d like to suggest a potential improvement that could benefit many organisations.Our business uses DocuSign in multiple ways across departments. Most teams issue high volumes of letters and rely on the efficiency of having completed documents automatically emailed to recipients as attachments. This feature is a time-saver for them and improves their day-to-day productivity.However, within our HR department, we use DocuSign for issuing password-protected documents. For security reasons, we do not want these documents sent as email attachments once signed, as they are no longer protected at that stage.At present, the workaround we use is to manually toggle the relevant setting on and off depending on which department is sending documents. As you can imagine, this is not idea and places an unnecessary operational burden on our DocuSign super users.Feature request:Could DocuSign introduce the ability to customise this setting at the envelope or recipient group level? This would allow departments like HR to disable email attachments for sensitive use cases, while allowing the rest of the organisation to retain their efficiency-oriented preferences.I imagine many organisations must face this same conflict - balancing convenience with compliance and confidentiality.We would be keen to integrate DocuSign more deeply into our HR processes, but this current limitation is a barrier.Grateful for any thoughts or support from others who'd find this useful.Thank you!

    familiarNew Voice

    Embeddable Videos for ProposalsParked

    The WhatThis is a feature suggestion to enable users to embed third-party video players (YouTube, Vimeo) directly within an online document. The downloadable PDF would not have a video player embedded, but the online version would.  The WhyThe purpose of this feature is to include important content in sales proposals. Product demonstration videos, video testimonials, and personalized introduction videos can all play stronger than static images. Only having an image with a link to an external URL will take recipients out of the proposal, which risks them bouncing without ever returning. It puts other content in front of them that takes attention away from the intended proposal content. For example, suppose a YouTube video is opened outside of the proposal and competitors’ videos are on YouTube.  Other Document Software Service That Do ThisThree services that currently allow embeddable video, while retaining the traditional classic document look, are PandaDoc, GoHighLevel, and Prospero. Those 3 software services are in portrait orientation and generate downloadable PDFs, but the online versions embed third-party video players directly within the online documents.  Might It Up-Sell People? I became a DocuSign customer for contracts because of the familiarity / brand recognition that DocuSign has. However, I am also paying for proposal software separately (Qwilr). If DocuSign had the ability to embed third-party video players inside of proposal documents, I would invest the proposal software money into upgrading DocuSign instead. After all, it would consolidate everything in one place for me (if I could do sales proposal documents and contract documents both in DocuSign.) 

    LWUKNewcomer

    Searching for a document in a Group of users in one move (not per user)Idea Submitted

    Can I first suggest Support upload some of the Ideas? If Support’s advice is “yes that’s a great idea please post this in the community” why then can’t they refer it in here? All it means is the customer is repeating the same problem twice? I don’t get it.We have users assigned to Groups, which are essentially teams. The users in a Group send hundreds and soon thousands of envelopes at fixed times each year. All users in the Group have been given full sharing access by me (Admin) - they can see everything of each other and act on behalf of each other - full transparency for operational effectiveness. I should add, we all use Single Sign On which is why we cannot have a generic email address (username and password shared by a whole team to login to DS) and only individual users can login - hence the need to setup Groups - they all do the same job and need to see each others' envelopes.Due to the way sharing happens in DS, you can only search for a document a user has sent (a user in the Group) by searching each individual user’s envelopes at a time. You cannot search envelopes across ALL users in a group IN ONE MOVE - to find the one you need. The time it takes to search e.g. 10 users to find the envelope (in Agreements folder Waiting for Other) is incredibly time consuming. And it’s like finding a needle in a haystack. Imagine if there was functionality to search for a named document across ALL users in a group IN ONE MOVE. A simple checkbox which says Select All Users in Group and Search.

    Jihyun BaeNew Voice

    Request for improvement of signature functionParked

    An internal deviation occurred because the user's signature was truncated in the completed document in Samsung Biologics. *image removed* The CFR part11 also states that signatures should be in human-readable form in printed matter. In addition, as an GMP company, SBL's signature cut is against internal regulations.Below is SBL QA's opinion.-----------------------------------------Since the signature 'Person/Date/Time' information cannot be verified/tracked in the finalized document itself, it is considered GDP violation (Originality, Readability, Accuracy, etc.). Since the E-FORM is the original and does not exist as a separate True Copy to compare/prove the existing signature, it is considered appropriate to capture the loss of records in the original as a Deviation. For the truncated information, it seems that you can check it through Audit Trail, so impact seems to be small, but it seems appropriate to capture the event and impact verification results through Deviation.----------------------------------------If the Impact is small but captured as a deviation within the SBL, the system needs to be improved to prevent the issue from recurring. Guiding users through the process is not a complete prevention of issues. Therefore, I would like to ask if one of the three below is possible through system improvement.- Make the 'Sign field' the same as the signature size so that the user can recognize the signature size.- If the signature is truncated from the document, an error occurs and finish is not possible.- Resize the completed signature before finish (We understand that can re-sign after the signature has been canceled.)

    christottenNewcomer

    More detailed historical audit / history for envelopes as they are sent and signedIdea Submitted

    We use the 21 CFR Part 11 module for pharmaceutical industry, specifically in this example to record the creation / amendment / extension and ultimately retirement of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) within the business. Recently as part of an SOP amendment the document was sent out to 3 x parties for signature. The first one received and signed OK, but the second one commented that they had never received the envelope. When we went looking in the audit history it appeared as if the envelope had been moved into a folder called “Bin” for some reason. This is not a folder we’ve created or are familiar with, so we can only assume that someone manually moved it here. The idea / request is simple - the current audit trail for envelopes, particularly when using the 21 CFR Part 11 module for regulated pharmaceutical industry - is not detailed enough. We went into the audit thinking we could identify who moved the envelope here and when, but no this level of detail is not provided. The audit trail for an envelope should provide this level of detail - it would allow us to problem solve why a multi-party signing “stalled” and importantly with who so we can provide them with training. At present there is nowhere near enough detail to show precisely what happened to an envelope as it moves through the system - every single action should be record along with who performed it and when and this audit should be immutable. Many thanks Chris TottenSenior IT Architect, Norbrook Laboratories Limited, UK