Get Started
Get Inspiration
Groups
Events
Ideas
Release Hub

Start a Post
Log in

Home
Ideas

Ideas

Want to shape the future of Docusign? Add your ideas for dream features and upvote others you love.

Featured topics

How to Use the Ideas Feature

What you need to know about Docusign Community IdeasThis guide will walk you through the process of sharing your ideas, voting on existing ideas, and...

Forum|Forum|2 years ago

22860

Update on the status of submitted ideas

Hi everyone! We’ve heard your questions about the status of submitted ideas in the Ideas forum.Internally, the Docusign team is actively reviewing you...

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

9708

Filter by Idea status

Filter by category

1017 Ideas

Most Replies

Most Votes

Newest First

PslimNew Voice

Agreement Manager to Allow specific users to create custom fieldsIdea Submitted

Currently there is a need to view all agreements to all custom fields creation.There should be an ability to allow those Director level individuals that do contract approval to allow custom field creation and sharing of agreement sets to new project teams for contract renewal and negotiation. There is not a need to view all agreements to create the fields.

Forum|Forum|1 month ago

arthresherNew Voice

Restrict Ability to Add Recipients to Template in Advanced EditParked

It would be very nice to have the ability to configure templates so that users can delete, replace, and add documents and signing fields and modify or delete recipients without being able to add recipients.Setting the template to Quick Send Only prevents senders from adding recipients; however, it is then impossible to delete, replace, or add documents to the template or to modify the signing fields. Moreover, once a Quick Send draft is saved, resuming the draft opens directly into Advanced Edit, where the sender is free to add recipients. I also cannot imagine that is the intended behavior.This is the main hurdle preventing my organization from expanding our usage of Docusign eSignature beyond a handful of document types.

Forum|Forum|1 month ago

sailesh.nairNewcomer

Add Filter details and Owner of envelopes to the csv downloadIdea Submitted

Add the filter details to the csv download feature.The filter applied during the csv download must be captured in the csv file downloaded on the first line.Additionally the owner details(email id) of each envelop should also be output along with the envelope id.

Forum|Forum|1 month ago

EKSNewcomer

Add a way to resize one dimensions of a field at a timeIdea Submitted

I frequently am creating form templates that have multiple fields that are of the same width and or height, and when creating these it is very frustrating that if I ever want to make one of them, say, be a taller field while still being the same width as the others, I cannot do this in any way. Even more frustrating is when I have several identical fields, and then need to edit the form in order to increase the height of them, but want to preserve them having the same width as each other.With the current field resizing tools, I can only adjust field sizing by dragging the corners, which adjusts both the height and width simultaneously - which makes it impossible to not change both at once, which makes it extremely imprecise, and effectively impossible to not at least slightly change the other dimension. There is no way to do something like hold ctrl to change this behavior, and bafflingly there is no way to adjust a field by dragging from one of the flat edges rather than the corners.There should be a way to accomplish this - be it having resizing bars on the edges of the field boxes that can be dragged to adjust one dimension at a time, or holding a key to lock one dimension as long as the other dimension isn't changing much. Or have a menu that would allow me to set a field to an exact size, thus allowing me to set all of the fields to the same width. These are very simple and straightforward options and tools, available in most similar types of platforms or editing software, and not having the ability to do things like this had been endlessly frustrating. Similarly, when resizing a field and having an edge begin to line up with a field nearby it, there should be a faint line that I can snap the edge to to line up the edges - this would also help solve this issue, while also solving issues with having fields with different lengths that are supposed to end at the same point on the right edge (say, different titled fields such as name, email address, phone number, account number, etc, that are each above/below each other, where the ends of the fields should be in line but the left edges are obviously starting at the ends of the text. I want my forms to look properly professional when deployed, and not have inconsistent and varied widths for fields that are directly following each other, especially when it is simply due to lacking tools.

Forum|Forum|1 month ago

veronica.barnasNewcomer

Allow Admin/Users to View Size of EnvelopeIdea Submitted

We recently had an issue where attachments were not being included in the completed email. It turns out it was because the envelope exceeded 5 MB. Because we can’t see this in our instance anywhere, we will need to bring Support in each time this happens to make sure it is the same issue and not something different.

Forum|Forum|1 month ago

PQuayeNewcomer

Agreement Type RecoveryIdea Submitted

Deleting or modifying fields in Docusign is complicated. It often means that either your field will be incorrectly collocated or that you are unable to use the same name for a field created later on. I’ve encountered this same issue with the Agreement Type. I deleted the agreement type so that I could recreate it to add all miscellaneous fields, however I was not able to name the new agreement type after an old one, and there was no way to recover the previously deleted agreement type and now have to select a new name. Any workarounds or updates to address this issue?

Forum|Forum|1 month ago

mshealyEstablished Contributor

delete groups in bulkIdea Submitted

I would like to delete groups in bulk. Right now, I have to select one at a time now. I have hundreds of groups to remove and this is going to take me forever to do. either put a select box by each group or something. Thankshave to select one at a time.

Forum|Forum|1 month ago

PQuayeNewcomer

Delete a single rule built as part of a larger rule block.Idea Submitted

I’ve found that moving rule block and updating their position is not really possible with the IAM document template. This would be great if we are able to later delete one rule from a rule block in order to reposition it within the contract.

Forum|Forum|1 month ago

JanSpacekNew Voice

Bug: “Specify Recipients” – Name field marked as required but must be empty + misleading error messageIdea Submitted

When using the “Specify Recipients” option, there are two issues that together create a functional defect:1) Name field appears as mandatory but must actually be emptyIn the recipient setup, the Name field has a * (star) beside it, which in standard convention means the field is required and must be filled in by the sender.However, in the Specify Recipients scenario:If the sender fills in the Name field, the envelope cannot be sent. To proceed, the sender must leave the Name field blank.So the UI is instructing users to do the exact opposite of what is actually required. This is not just confusing; it is contrary to the documented UX pattern where * means “must be filled in”.Expected behavior:For Specify Recipients, the Name field should not be marked with a * (or should clearly be indicated as optional/must be left blank for this routing type). Alternatively, the UI should dynamically change the requirement/indicator when Specify Recipients is used.2) Error message is incorrect and does not reflect the real problemIf the sender fills in the Name field and tries to send the envelope, the system displays the following error:“This recipient type must have at least one recipient to specify at the same or later position in the signing order.”This message is misleading in this context:The signing order is set correctly. The issue is not that there is no recipient to specify at the same or later position. The real root cause is that the Name field is filled in, even though for Specify Recipients it must be empty.So the error points users to signing-order configuration, when the real fix is simply to clear the Name field.Expected behavior:The error message should clearly describe the actual problem, for example:“For ‘Specify Recipients’, the Name field must be left empty so the recipient can be specified later.” Why this needs to be treated as a bug (not just an enhancement)The * indicator is a core DocuSign UX convention for “mandatory”; here, it is effectively wrong. The error message sends users in the wrong direction and does not help them correct the real issue. The combination of these issues blocks users from sending envelopes and creates unnecessary support interactions.RequestFix the mandatory field indicator for Name when using Specify Recipients, so it accurately reflects that the Name must be left blank (or at least is not required). Update the error message to clearly indicate that the Name field must not be filled in when using Specify Recipients.This change would align the UI and messaging with the actual system behavior and significantly reduce confusion and support cases.

Forum|Forum|1 month ago

Robin HabegerNewcomer

Allow an option to have recipient info transfer when an Envelope is saved as a TemplateIdea Submitted

Hello, we save Envelopes as Templates in order to transfer them to a shared folder. Every time we save an Envelope as a Template, we have to re-type the recipient info. Every. Singe. Time. It would be great if there was an option to have the recipient info automatically transfer to the Template. Or some kind of option to allow the Envelope to be shared by other users beside saving it as a Template.Thank you!

Forum|Forum|1 month ago

Cadena de SuministroNewcomer

Allow sorting envelopes in the inbox by date receivedDuplicate

Ensure that the option to sort envelopes by date received works in the 'action required' tray, allowing users to sign from the oldest to the newest envelope. Likewise, when an envelope is signed, the system should suggest signing the next oldest one, rather than the newest one as it currently does.

Forum|Forum|1 month ago

NBKPRActive Voice

Increase the limit on the number of attachments per web formIdea Submitted

While enhancing a web form, I reached the limit of the number of attachments a form can have: 15.I know that when the form is filled, there will not be 15 attachments. The developers need to change the limit to 30 or more. I have a few places in the form with check boxes. If you check a box, the person filling out the form needs to attach a document. A description of the desired document is necessary. With this limiting factor, I will have to choose which options will have an attachment field.

Forum|Forum|1 month ago

TomDActive Voice

Option to reduce field padding/margin or allow vertical alignmentIdea Submitted

Problem: Input text does not appear at the expected height and is mis-aligned with existing text. This causes a lot of time consuming trial and error (and the preview function for document templates is so half-baked it is not even worth trying at that stage). If you want the input text to be in line with existing text, the input field must generally be placed 1-2 mm below the level of the existing text. That in turn can mean the input box overlaps text below.Very dense forms, such as W-8BEN-E, can be very difficult to set up because the rows of existing text is so close and the input fields take up excessive height.Suggestion: It would be great if the user could be sure of where the input text will be on the final document by simply trusting how input fields appear in the template. Please let the user remove the padding/margin to decrease the field size and preferably align the text vertically to top, centre, or bottom. The user should be able to know precisely where the text will appear in the completed document.The same goes for tick-boxes (mark ends up too low), etc.The user’s preference should be saved in the user profile or admin settings.

Forum|Forum|1 month ago

rodvillaniTroubleshooter

Apply Global Filter Across Multiple CLM ReportsIdea Submitted

I would like to suggest an enhancement for reporting in Docusign CLM. Currently, I maintain multiple reports based on the same set of documents, but grouped by different attributes for visualization purposes (graphics). For example: One report grouped by Request Owner Another grouped by Requesting Department Another grouped by Completion DeadlineIt would be extremely valuable to have the ability to link these reports under a shared or global filter. For instance, if I select a specific “Requesting Department” as a primary filter, all related reports (e.g. by Owner and by Deadline) would automatically update to reflect that same filter. At the moment, filters must be applied manually to each report one by one, which is time-consuming and inefficient. A synchronized filtering capability would significantly improve usability, consistency of analysis and overall reporting efficienty. Thanks for considering this idea.

Forum|Forum|1 month ago

daniel.krcmarDigital Collaborator

Prefill tabs visible to all recipients regardless of routing orderIdea Submitted

Prefill tabs visible to all recipients regardless of routing orderRight now, fields assigned to the Sender are only visible during the Sender's signing session. An enhancement would be making locked/prefilled fields visible in the document for all recipients from the moment they open it.

Forum|Forum|1 month ago

daniel.krcmarDigital Collaborator

Native HubSpot CRM integration for DocuSign template field prefillIdea Submitted

Allow Docusign document templates to connect directly to HubSpot CRM so that when sending an envelope, contact/company fields (name, title, company, address, etc.) are automatically pulled and prefilled without requiring a custom API integration or workflows. Desired behavior:Map Docusign template fields (e.g. customer_name, customer_company) to HubSpot contact/company properties in the template editor When sending, Docusign auto-fetches the mapped values from HubSpot

Forum|Forum|1 month ago

mottoNewcomer

I would like more flexibility with voided envelopes and send limits.Idea Submitted

I would like more flexibility with voided envelopes and send limits. I wonder if the creator of the Docusign documents for example, me a landlord, could void a document but still keep my monthly send quota if the other signers did not sign yet. It would give more leeway for mistakes that might have been made to the document, especially if we are sending it to the same person to sign the same day or a few minutes later. I made a mistake on my document today and sent it, I reviewed it and immediately knew I had made a mistake but now my send quota is gone for that document.

Forum|Forum|2 months ago

PANDA10Newcomer

Envelope Transfer ImprovementsIdea Submitted

It would be great if the Envelope Custody Transfer function could be enhanced to improve processing speed. At the moment, many envelopes take several hours to transfer, and in some cases, those initiated in the morning are not completed until the following day.In addition, it would be very helpful if there were options to:Cancel a transfer if the processing time becomes excessively long; and Set priorities when multiple envelopes are being transferred simultaneously, so that more urgent transfers can be completed first.These improvements would significantly enhance the efficiency of transferring these envelopes and ensure that user’s transfers are completed as soon as possible.

Forum|Forum|2 months ago

PatThapaNew Voice

Allow documents to be added to an existing DocuSign envelope from NetDocumentsIdea Submitted

When using the NetDocuments and DocuSign integration, users cannot add or replace documents once an envelope has been created. If one extra document is required, users must discard the envelope and recreate the entire signing pack, which is time consuming for envelopes with 20+ documents. Discarded envelopes can also leave documents checked out in NetDocuments with a DocuSign timestamp, requiring administrator intervention. Please add functionality to allow users to add, replace, or remove NetDocuments documents in an existing DocuSign envelope where the envelope status allows editing/correction, and improve checkout release handling when an envelope is discarded or voided.

Forum|Forum|2 months ago

TJHNew Voice

Document Markup Needs Reliable Persistence and Structured Redline Workflow SupportIdea Submitted

SummaryDocument Markup is positioned as a way for recipients to propose and approve changes during signing, but in practice it does not reliably support back-and-forth negotiation between sequential signers. Below are the specific gaps identified through extensive testing on our account, along with the business impact of each. 1. Markup Data Is Not Reliably SavedWhen a signer applies markups and selects Finish Later instead of completing the envelope, the markup changes are not saved or visible to the next signer. The only way to preserve markup activity at all is to complete every required signature field and fully execute the envelope. This means markups effectively only persist if the document is signed, which defeats the purpose of a negotiation step that is meant to happen before signing.Business Impact: Teams cannot pause a negotiation mid-process without losing the redline history. This makes Markup unreliable as a tool for any agreement that requires more than one round of review. 2. No Oversight or Notification When Markups Are MadeWhen a signer applies markups, there is no notification, flag, or visual callout to alert the next signer that changes have been made. The only way to discover a markup is to manually review the entire document page by page.Business Impact: This creates a high risk of a signer missing material changes to a contract, particularly in multi-page agreements. It also removes the audit confidence that all parties were made aware of proposed changes. 3. No Structured Way to Respond to a MarkupThere is no accept and reject function, no threaded comments, and no version comparison. A signer can only initial a markup or attempt to edit it directly within the document and add their own initials. There is no clear mechanism for a counterparty to formally respond to a proposed change without simply overwriting it.Business Impact: This does not support genuine negotiation. Real-world contract negotiation requires the ability to propose, respond to, accept, or reject specific terms with a clear record of who proposed what and when. Markup does not provide this today. 4. Markup and Required Signature Fields Can Conflict in Sequential SigningIn testing, we found that the interaction between Markup and required signature fields in a sequential, multi-signer envelope behaves inconsistently. We have seen scenarios where an envelope completed without all required signers signing, and other scenarios where the markup activity was effectively erased unless the document was fully executed.Business Impact: This inconsistency makes Markup unsuitable for any workflow with enforced signing order, which is standard for two-party agreements requiring sequential approval, such as subcontractor and vendor agreements. Requested ImprovementsWe would ask that the product team consider the following enhancements to Document Markup:- Persist markup data and comments at every stage of the envelope lifecycle, regardless of whether the envelope is completed, including when a signer selects Finish Later.- Notify all recipients when a markup has been applied, including a visual indicator on the document itself showing where changes were made.- Add a structured accept and reject mechanism for markups, with the ability to leave a comment tied to a specific change, so that negotiation history is clearly tracked.- Ensure markup behavior is fully compatible and predictable when used within an envelope that has an enforced signing order and required signature fields for multiple recipients.We believe these improvements would allow Document Markup to function as the lightweight redlining tool it is intended to be, particularly for organizations using sequential signing workflows for vendor and subcontractor agreements.

Forum|Forum|2 months ago

JimOUSALConversation Starter

Send for Signature: Raise envelope subject character limit above 100 charactersIdea Submitted

The Subject field on outbound signature envelopes is capped at 100 characters. Our standard business process places provider name, provider ID, and multiple TINs in the subject line, which routinely exceeds 100 chars (real example flagged: “Please sign Lorenzo, Carlos-1831876051 TINs 453931864, 822907980, 841904835, 853233848, 991460658, 392443045” — 108 chars, rejected).Important: Truncation is silent in some flows — Boost rep tested with a 200-char subject; the process completed but the notification arrived truncated to 100 chars without warning. Either raise the limit or surface the truncation in the UI so users know their full subject didn’t carry through.

Forum|Forum|2 months ago

JimOUSALConversation Starter

Extract Pages: Auto-append .pdf extension (align with Rename behavior)Idea Submitted

The Extract Pages action’s “New File Name” field requires the user to manually type “.pdf” — omitting it returns: “New file [name] has invalid file name.” The plain Rename action does not require the extension and handles it correctly. This inconsistency within CLM.DS itself is a friction point. Request: either auto-append the extension on split, or align Extract Pages validation with Rename so users don’t need to remember which action requires what.

Forum|Forum|2 months ago

JimOUSALConversation Starter

Document Viewer: Configurable default zoom level (tenant or user preference)Idea Submitted

Documents always open at 100% zoom. For our use case 100% is too large and users resize on every open. Request: ability to set a default zoom level — either as a tenant-wide setting or a user-persistable preference — so the viewer opens at the user’s preferred size (e.g., 75%) without manual resizing.

Forum|Forum|2 months ago

JimOUSALConversation Starter

Document Viewer: Default Details side-panel to collapsedIdea Submitted

The Details panel auto-expands on the left side of the viewer every time a document is opened. Users have to dismiss it on every open. SpringCM did not auto-expand this panel. Request: default the Details panel to collapsed; let users open it via the Details icon when needed. Configurable at tenant or user level would be ideal.

Forum|Forum|2 months ago

JimOUSALConversation Starter

Document Viewer: Allow finer zoom increments (e.g., 10% or 25%) instead of only 50% / 100% / 150%Idea Submitted

The CLM document viewer currently offers only 50%, 100%, and 150% zoom levels. SpringCM offered finer-grained zoom that users relied on for reviewing dense provider documents (credentialing applications, contracts). The 50% jumps make it hard to land on a comfortable reading size. Request: finer zoom steps (10% or 25%), or a fit-to-width / fit-to-page option similar to Adobe and DocuSign eSign

Forum|Forum|2 months ago