[HN Gopher] eSignature for Google Docs and Google Drive (Beta) ___________________________________________________________________ eSignature for Google Docs and Google Drive (Beta) Author : rc00 Score : 220 points Date : 2023-08-10 17:59 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (workspaceupdates.googleblog.com) (TXT) w3m dump (workspaceupdates.googleblog.com) | j_san wrote: | Is this targeted for the US market or also the EU? Does this | qualify as a an advanced electronic signature (AdES) under the | eIDAS regulation? | hbaum wrote: | Author of open-pdf-sign here. AdES alone is difficult to do | without proper signatures and user verification. Besides that, | if Google would go for advanced electronic signatures, I'd | expect it showing up in the EU Trusted List, which it isn't. So | unless Google is not utilizing their own Google Trust Services | certificate authority, I'd say it's unlikely that they will | launch with AdES that are compatible with eIDAS. | danpalmer wrote: | I don't have any inside info here, but anecdotally, Google | seems good at meeting regulatory requirements. I wouldn't be | surprised if it does meet this if it's available in the EU. | bombolo wrote: | Being available doesn't mean it's considered legally valid. I | can sign with the private key on my national id... | plumeria wrote: | Many Latinamerican countries also use digital signatures (e.g | PAdES). I wonder if they support this? LATAM always seems to | be forgotten by big tech. | rvnx wrote: | No it doesn't, not considered as a trusted (certified) provider | and doesn't meet the level for secure user authentication. | | It's like a gadget in Europe then. | | But still, it is useful. | | It can be used if you want to ask your daughter to promise to | "Get good grades at school" in exchange for an extra Christmas | gift, for example. | | And make it look like official. | | It's like pretending to be signing. | TeMPOraL wrote: | In other words: is strictly less useful than a "fake analog | signature" script that uses imagemagick to paste a PNG/SVG | with a signature (or a random one from a directory of | signatures) on the last page of the document, and then to | apply some or all of random {sub-2deg rotation, tiny gaussian | blur, tiny non-linear transform, color threshold, strong | desaturation}, to make it seem like the document was printed | out, signed, and scanned back. | 23B1 wrote: | [flagged] | Waterluvian wrote: | As long as this doesn't pretend like a signature is a | cryptographic tool, I'm generally a fan of doing away with | nonsense like Docusign. | rodolphoarruda wrote: | The only chance for it to fly among the SMB in Brazil where | DocuSign and ClickSign are the major players is by adding | WhatsApp to the signature workflow. Notifications via email alone | won't work. | gumby wrote: | My ID card has a chip in it and can be used to sign documents. | Why not support that? | amf12 wrote: | Because their biggest markets do not? And it's a just | announced, beta feature! | s-xyz wrote: | Bye bye Docusign? | whitej125 wrote: | We use DocuSign here and the amount of time I spend hopping back | and forth (exporting and importing) between Google and DocuSign | is annoyingly high. If Google were to enter this space... I would | personally welcome it. | princevegeta89 wrote: | Personally I found the entire design and the organization of | files/docs/sheets between Google Drive and other apps in the | Google ecosystem is confusing as hell. There was no way to | follow a specific hierarchy and the commenting/reviewing system | felt clunky. | | Wish I never had to use this Google suite of products if it | wasn't for my employer. | candiddevmike wrote: | You would hate Microsoft 365 then. I find Google Drive | extremely clean and easy to use. | namanaggarwal wrote: | Will this be admissible in court of law ? I know docusign is. | | On what basis is it determined that particular signing tech is | admissable | jeffbee wrote: | Varies by jurisdiction of course. Under American law and | similar systems the admissibility of a type of evidence is | established by it having been admitted before, and the initial | admission is based on the judgement of some individual judge. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _American law and similar systems the admissibility of a | type of evidence is established by it having been admitted | before_ | | It's also been statute since 2000 [1]. | | [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Signatures_in_ | Glo... | mbauman wrote: | It would also vary by use-case. Some regulated industries | have specific standards required for an electronic signature | -- and hitting those standards is typically an add-on cost | for systems like Docusign. | 8organicbits wrote: | It varies by jurisdiction, but examples like this show that | very little can be needed. | | https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-ruled-thumbs-up-emoji-... | ew wrote: | We attempted to create this last year with https://pleasesign.me. | Definitely a case of waiting too long on a good idea. Ah well, it | still has some features Google might not launch :) | jeremycarter wrote: | Looks great | haliskerbas wrote: | Another set of startups that is just a feature on one of the big | platforms. | mr_toad wrote: | For a tiny moment I thought this might be about making | cryptographic signatures available to the masses. A sign that | there's still some good left in Google. | | I should have known better. | aFaid7see0ni wrote: | I was hoping it's this https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building- | blocks/wikis/display/D... but unfortunatey we are not there yet | I_am_tiberius wrote: | No pricing === you are the product | sassifrass wrote: | Google Workspace is a paid-for product? | dctoedt wrote: | > _No pricing === you are the product_ | | True, but is this no pricing? At a glance it appears to be | available only to Workspace customers, which I believe you have | to pay for (at least I've been paying for it for years). | dexterdog wrote: | With google you are the product whether you pay or not. Some of | their most valuable data comes from the companies who use | google for all of their email, calendar and documents. | rrdharan wrote: | https://workspace.google.com/learn-more/security/security- | wh... | | I'd argue it's the least valuable data. They can't look at | it, they have regulatory, legal and contractual commitments | to protect it, they have paying customers that will be very | angry if it's lost or unavailable, and yet they can't mine it | or train models with it or monetize it. | EGreg wrote: | What is the minimum required functionality to roll your own | e-signature which would be LEGALLY BINDING under the e-sign act? | | Seems all we need is: | | Consent to do business electronically -- All parties must agree | to conduct transactions electronically, either explicitly or | implied. | | Intent to sign -- E-signatures are only valid if the signer | intended to sign. Signature requests need to be declinable. | | Association of signature with the record -- Signers must make a | visible mark or statement on the e-document. | | Attribution -- Whether a name or a unique mark, the signature | must be attributable to the person signing and only linked to | them. | | Record retention -- Signed electronic documents must be saved, | viewed, or printed by either party and stored for future | reference. | crooked-v wrote: | The important question is, when is Google going to kill this | functionality? DocuSign only has to hold out until then. | geodel wrote: | Reminds me of Keyenes : _Markets can remain irrational longer | than you can remain solvent_ | renewiltord wrote: | Haha, I asked ChatGPT to make up some HN comments and it's | classic. | | https://chat.openai.com/share/9b69427a-b28c-4080-b097-6a0a78... | | The HN/LLM concordance ratio is approaching 1. Eventually, I | can just remove comments and then fill them in with ChatGPT | instead. | hedora wrote: | I wonder what happens to documents that were signed with this | thing after they kill the product. | | Also, I wonder if the person signing the document has to agree | to Google's entire ToS in order to sign the document. | | Congress could fix both issues with some well-thought-out | legislation: | | - Signatures from these things have to support external | validation via standard tools (e.g., Google uses PGP or | whatever to sign the signature + document + metadata). | | - If the act of accessing or signing a contract implicitly | incorporates other contracts, then either (a) the signature is | non-binding of (b) the incorporated contracts are rendered | unenforceable, regardless of whether they were agreed to via | other means. | jbverschoor wrote: | It's funny, this is exactly what I was wondering. | booleandilemma wrote: | DocuSign should start working on their "Import from Google | Docs" feature. | eclipxe wrote: | [flagged] | LeoPanthera wrote: | > Every HN thread. | | No, not every HN thread, but "Every Google product". | | This is an entirely valid concern borne out by history. Until | Google goes to extraordinary measures to prove that it will | be unusually long-lived, you _should_ assume that it will be | dead in a few years. | | "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and | over and expecting different results." | endisneigh wrote: | by your logic we should go into every Show HN and say their | project will be dead. historically most projects and | companies die too after a few years. | | but obviously that wouldn't be helpful for discussion or | particularly insightful to spam, either. | hbn wrote: | Show HN threads don't repeatedly come from the same guy | popping in with his unlimited amounts of money that he | used to make yet another side project that some people | will use for a few years while he gathers your data then | decides to kill because it wasn't an immediate smashing | success, or he wanted to redo it cause the other one was | old. | ixwt wrote: | I would agree with you, if every Show HN was from a | single massive company that is a central point of | failure. | olyjohn wrote: | Most people aren't affected by those vaproware products. | Most people _are_ tied into Google one way or another, | and changes they make can affect everybody. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _we should go into every Show HN and say their project | will be dead_ | | It would be totally fair to ask an upstart DocuSign | competitor about their wind-down process. The fact that | I'm more confident they will have thought that through is | the problem. | reaperducer wrote: | _Sigh. Every HN thread._ | | Sigh. Every Google product. | deegles wrote: | Why is it unwarranted? | jader201 wrote: | Maybe not necessarily unwarranted, but certainly unhelpful. | | It doesn't really add to interesting/thoughtful discussion | in the spirit of | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. | | Particularly: | | > Don't be snarky. Converse curiously | | > Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet | tropes. | | These subthreads never really go anywhere, other than fan | the flames of Google hate. | | Again, not necessarily saying they're not warranted, but | for folks looking for interesting discussion, it can | certainly add noise to the signal. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | Signatures aren't a move-fast-and-break-things domain. | Google's culture is bad at maintenance and wind-down. I | would react negatively to someone sending me a Google | e-sign without having considered these questions. | rvnx wrote: | Inside Google, you usually get more easily promoted if | you launch new products, than if you just maintain | products. | | Let's see the moment when Google launches Twitter-bis. | It's a matter of time before it's done. | crooked-v wrote: | Maybe people would stop pattern-matching about it if there | wasn't such an obvious pattern. | oh_sigh wrote: | "people" don't. This is largely just a hn-ism which I've | pretty much never heard outside of this bubble. In any | case, repeating a cliche response on any news out of Google | isn't any kind of substantive contribution to the | discussion and makes for a poor hn comment even if it was | true. | packetlost wrote: | ... did you not read any news at all covering Stadia? | Like... any of it? At all??? Google's propensity for | killing projects is absolutely in the mainstream mindset. | duringmath wrote: | Yeah wouldn't want it to go the way of Google Toolbar, that | thing would definitely be relevant today. | krasin wrote: | > Yeah wouldn't want it to go the way of Google Toolbar, that | thing would've definitely been relevant today. | | Hm... I briefly was a part of the Google Toolbar team back in | 2008. How would it be relevant today? All of the features | that I remember, are now a part of the browser itself | (whether it's Firefox, Safari, Edge or Chrome/Chromium). | | That said, the eSignature for Google Docs feature would | definitely benefit from some strong (preferably, legal & | irrevocable) commitment to keep it alive for 40+ years or | more. Otherwise, I fail to see how it's useful. | duringmath wrote: | Exactly. I was pointing out that not every app/service has | to be preserved and supported forever. | codetrotter wrote: | > Anyway, just thought that whipping out "Google kills | products" meme for a mere feature was a bit much. | | I know I'm beating a dead horse^W^W^W _dead Google | products_ but, they really do kill a lot of popular | products | | https://killedbygoogle.com/ | | That being said, if they add eSig for Google Docs I | agree; I don't see why nor how they'd kill that | individual feature unless they kill Docs all-together. | Which, hopefully, they won't do for many years yet. | duringmath wrote: | Some popular products,sure. | | Much of the listed "casualties" were throwaway wrapper | apps that have perfectly fine webapp replacements, apps | for platforms that no longer exist, duplicates, and stand | alone apps that are now features of bigger apps etc. | delecti wrote: | A great many of their killed products ended up being | merged/evolved into other ones (Duo into Meet). A great | many more weren't even "killed"; over the past 20 years | their in-gmail chat program has evolved from Talk to | Hangouts, and then from Hangouts to Chat. It has kept the | same chat history throughout the past 20 years, but | "killed by google" lists Talk and Hangouts as two killed | products. | dvngnt_ wrote: | but the other part is even when they replace services the | new one lacks the same features or ux that made the | original special. | | inbox vs gmail play music vs youtube music | delecti wrote: | They certainly kill services, my point is the "Google | Graveyard" is very overblown. | TeMPOraL wrote: | > _It has kept the same chat history throughout the past | 20 years_ | | So how come I can't access chats from before mid-2013? | Not even by Google Takeout? | | (It so happens that some of the most important | conversations in my life happened in 2012, so I'm to date | super annoyed that, for no good reason, 2013 is some kind | of cut-off date.) | delecti wrote: | You seem to be right. I'm pretty confident in my memory | that the history persisted from Talk to Hangouts, but the | Talk history may not have persisted again from Hangouts | to Chat. That would line up with your data, as the Talk | to Hangouts switch/rename happened in 2013. | endisneigh wrote: | Makes sense. For Google implementing this is probably regulatory | mainly, not technical. Given how expensive alternatives are, this | will be a boon for small contractual actions, though I doubt any | huge enterprises will (immediately) switch. | | Major limitation for now though is: | | > Non-Gmail users: the ability to request an eSignature from non- | Gmail users | | Hopefully it's addressed sooner (September/October) rather than | later (November/December). | theogravity wrote: | Docusign stock doesn't seem to have taken a hit (yet): | | https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DOCU/ | xmly wrote: | Bad news for DocuSign | danielrhodes wrote: | First this is a great idea. Finally there is some movement on | making Google Docs better. | | I haven't used the feature, but from reading the blog post it is | sad to see how poorly Google executes on products, even at the | beta stage. | | Some context: | | I've built such a product before and eSigs are more simple than | they seem as long as you do a few things. 1) You need to verify | somebody's identity. Sending them an email with the request is a | valid way of doing this. 2) You need to make the final signed | document easily accessible (e.g. emailing all parties a copy of | the signed document. 3) You need to not obscure what the person | is signing (they need to be able to easily see the entire | document if they wish) 4) You need to make it possible for all | parties to verify the validity of a signature, which is done with | an audit trail appended to the back of the document. 5) Some | types of contracts are not valid to be signed with eSign. 6) The | parties need to agree to do business electronically, but this is | mostly up to them. | | You do not need to create fake wet signatures, cryptographically | sign a document, or do encryption beyond what is necessary for | normal compliance. Those are all UX or marketing features: they | don't hurt, just that according to experts I have spoken to, they | aren't a factor when going to court. | | And then we have what Google is offering: | | From the screenshots, I think it is only a fake wet signature. | I'm not sure how valid that is. | | Apparently you cannot ask for an eSignature from non-Gmail users | right now. But how are you supposed to know they are Gmail users? | Can Google not send people a simple email with a link? This alone | makes the feature almost worthless, and for something that seems | so trivial. | | They also said they will only be adding an audit trail later this | year. This is really sketchy because I believe it means you, nor | anybody else can actually verify if it has been signed. Again, | this is quite trivial: you store the audit trail in a database, | and you append the log as pages onto the back of the PDF | document. | jsnell wrote: | The article links to the help page for the feature: | https://support.google.com/docs/answer/12315692. It seems | likely that it'd be a lot better at answering your questions | than looking at screenshots. | | > They also said they will only be adding an audit trail later | this year. This is really sketchy because I believe it means | you, nor anybody else can actually verify if it has been | signed. | | From the help page it seems obvious that both the sender and | signers are able to check whether the contract has been signed. | "1. Open the respective PDF file in Drive or through the link | in the email notification. 2. Click View details in the upper | right corner of the PDF to open the right side panel and view | eSignature details." | | Are you saying that the only possible valid implementation of | an audit log is one appended to the contract pdf? | | > Can Google not send people a simple email with a link? | | Obviously they could. But equally obviously from your | description, this is not a feature where sending one email with | one link is sufficient. Based on the help page the final signed | contract is "saved in your Drive", an operation that's not | meaningful for a random email address that won't have an | associated Google Drive. It seems likely that this is a feature | that would be blocked on e.g. embedding the audit log in the | pdf as per the discussion above. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | > > Can Google not send people a simple email with a link? | | > Obviously they could. But equally obviously from your | description, this is not a feature where sending one email | with one link is sufficient. Based on the help page the final | signed contract is "saved in your Drive", an operation that's | not meaningful for a random email address that won't have an | associated Google Drive. It seems likely that this is a | feature that would be blocked on e.g. embedding the audit log | in the pdf as per the discussion above. | | None of this really matters. I totally agree with the parent | comment: having an e-signature product that is only usable by | other Gmail users (and of course their is really no way to | know if any particular email address is a Gmail user) makes | it useless. What, so if I need some docs signed I'll get half | of them signed with DocuSign and the other half with Docs? Of | course not, I'll just use the product that works with anyone. | | Google used to have this same "can only share docs with other | Drive users" feature, though it's improved somewhat. In | general I think the enterprise doc sharing features are so | bad in Drive that the only way I can wrap my head around it | is to think that Google is scared of antitrust concerns if | they too closely tried to emulate features from the likes of | Dropbox, Box and others. | nextos wrote: | > Finally there is some movement on making Google Docs better. | | Recently, they have also improved the UI on Google Docs and | Gmail making it much less laggy. | | On my old NUC computer, it makes a big difference. | | It seems that middle-management is becoming a bit less | sclerotic. | ec109685 wrote: | Chrome improvements might be helping there too. | nextos wrote: | Maybe, but this is something I experienced on Firefox ESR. | noodlesUK wrote: | In Europe, including the UK and EEA, there is the eIDAS | regulation, which outlines the requirement for eSignatures | (amongst other things). | | In order for a signature to be recognised, it has to meet one | of three trust levels | | 1. Electronic signature: this is basically something that puts | a distinguishing mark on a file. | | 2. Advanced electronic signature: these use cryptography | according to the specifications set out in the regulation, but | anyone can make them. There are some requirements about how a | person's identity is linked to their signature. | | 3. Qualified electronic signature: these are advanced | electronic signatures which have been produced with a | recognised trust service provider. Each country has a list of | trust service providers, and each other country mutually | recognises their trust lists. | | It is a bit more detailed than that, but in general, simple | transactions can pretty much use any electronic signature (but | this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The uk generally | doesn't need anything fancier than docusign). In order for | something to be completely watertight, it needs to be a | qualifying electronic signature. | | In order for these features to be useful in Europe, google will | need to meet the requirements of the regulations, and specify a | trust level. | mistrial9 wrote: | what is the legal name for "monopoly company requires ID and | location to view common document" ? | angry_octet wrote: | Capitalism. | londons_explore wrote: | This isn't the case for most agreements. Most agreements have | no 'form' requirements - ie. you could write it on a napkin | at a restaurant. As long as both parties believe they are | making a legally binding agreement, then they have made a | legally binding agreement. | | Use of technology doesn't change that. The only time a court | would throw out a signature made online is if the online | platform was somehow deceiving the parties - for example by | showing different text to each side when they click 'i | agree'. | danielrhodes wrote: | Ultimately where this matters is if one party contests the | validity of a contract. I'm not sure how it works in the EU, | but in the US that would mean a court would ultimately make | that decision. To that end, they could decide that two people | agreeing in an email thread is enough. It's all about your | risk appetite. | | However, notice that Google has not said they are compliant | with _any_ regulation. | josefx wrote: | As far as I understand it is mostly relevant when the | electronic signature is already explicitly required | beforehand. For example some government projects might | require a valid electronic signature on offers among a | million other things. In this case the electronic signature | isn't important because it is a signature, but because it | is a requirement and missing any requirement can get your | offer and even already signed contracts thrown out if a | competitor catches wind of it. | pkaye wrote: | Apparently in Canada a thumbs up emoji is valid as a | signature for a contract. | | https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/06/canada- | judge-t... | viscountchocula wrote: | Not is: can be | bbarnett wrote: | Not a signature, just that he accepted the deal. And note | that he had accepted deals the same way before. | | Accepting the terms, just as a handshake, on a deal, can | bind one. | angry_octet wrote: | It's more than a handshake deal -- they are making their | mark on a contract. This stems from the time before wide | literacy and the ability to write, where people would | make an X mark on the paper. Sometimes neither party | could not read the actual contract, which was written by | scribes. So the emoji is a mark. | | https://www.swanngalleries.com/news/autographs/2023/01/th | e-s... | ct520 wrote: | As someone that consults in this space I more or less agree | with you. Requirements are derived from interpretation of UETA | and ESIGN Act. Itext has a good write up and great library to | leverage when taking on project like this. Docusign has a good | writeup on esign/UETA. ESRA is the goto body on the subject, | and if you need legal opinion DLA Piper is the goto in the | industry. This stuff is fairly simple once you know it. | crazygringo wrote: | > _Finally there is some movement on making Google Docs | better._ | | I just find these comments to be so strange. You can look at | all of the articles in that blog to see all of the feature | improvements that have launched in Docs over the past 2 years. | It's a lot of stuff. | | Maybe they're not features that matter to you, some are | available only to paid customers as opposed to free tier, or | maybe you just haven't bothered to even notice. But they're | there. | | It's nothing about Google specifically -- I see people make | these comments about _so much_ software, where they assume a | project is or has been dead, just because they can 't even be | bothered to look at the changelog. It baffles me. | | It's like, unless it's a radical total UX overhaul, people | don't notice the work developers are putting in on actual | features. And if it is a radical total UX overhaul, people | complain about the change because they assume it's superficial | rather than actual features. | candiddevmike wrote: | You've both summed up everything wrong with design churn and | also justified it. Truly a cursed comment. | 30minAdayHN wrote: | At this point I'm worried if Google will sunset their new | features. Does anyone else have similar worries? At a personal | level, I got bitten couple of times, or may be even more... (one | was for the Inbox - or zero email gmail concept and second time | with Google Domains) | hintymad wrote: | The top items in my wishlist are spreadsheet-like formula | anywhere in a gdoc, spreadsheet-like tables, and support of Latex | or MathJax. That is, keep up with Quip. | fifteen1506 wrote: | RIP Dropbox | wanderingmind wrote: | The main thing about eSignature is the willingness and ability to | go to court to defend your tool and process. For the org that | can't be be bothered to have a barebone customer service, I'm not | sure how this will workout. | tadfisher wrote: | It's not like DocuSign does any sort of identity verification. | I signed up for a free account and they validated my email | address, that's it. That would be the only identifier | associated with my signature, so Google actually has more | information than them. | amf12 wrote: | There is customer service available to paid workspace accounts. | therealmarv wrote: | Everything which takes away from DocuSign is a win! | notfried wrote: | 14 months in testing, followed by a beta, is really moving too | slow. | summerlight wrote: | This is normal for Google, especially when some legal matters | are involved. | [deleted] | danpalmer wrote: | The alternative is launching too soon, getting it wrong, and | being accused of killing everything. | rvnx wrote: | 14 months in testing, 0 support of eIDAS, the main electronic | signature regulation and platform in Europe. | btown wrote: | Given that there are entire research papers titled things | like "Analysing the impact of the GDPR on eIDAS" I'm not | surprised that they launched without support... | crazygringo wrote: | Not when it's a legal feature designed for enterprises. | | A partner company willing to test it is going to take 3 months | to review and choose to adopt it, another 3 months trying to | convert a few internal flows, and another 6 months to observe | how it changes processes and whether it's an improvement or | not. | | The point here is to get it right, not to get it quick. | Enterprise software is the literal opposite of "move fast and | break things". | candiddevmike wrote: | This is enough for me to upgrade from Workspace Starter to | Standard. DocuSign is extremely expensive for what you get. | gauravphoenix wrote: | This isn't a DocuSign killer yet and won't be for a while until | Google get its enterprise story right. DocuSign is deeply | integrated with third party workflows in large organizations. | That's where the big bucks are and you can build a sticky | business. | [deleted] | drewda wrote: | Yeah, I've been surprised to learn how DocuSign is used by some | large corporations and government agencies. It's the system | that manages all sorts of forms and workflows within the orgs, | not just contracts going outside the org. | krona wrote: | Third party workflows like... Google Docs? | aodin wrote: | Like Salesforce | tootie wrote: | DocuSign shmocusign. Digital signatures is the most bizarrely | anachronistic technology on the Internet. Even credit card | vendors gave up on signatures. | danpalmer wrote: | On the one hand this is true, however there's another side to | this that makes it quite compelling. | | IT sign-off and buying new IT services is hard in _many_ large | businesses. This means that it 's almost always worth using a | built-in feature of software you already have, than going for | external software. Add to this the fact that companies almost | never have one company account, each team re-buys the same | software because services are hard, and the fact that most | companies already use DocuSign matters a bit less. | | Much of Slack's growth has been built on this[^1]. You can sign | up for a free account and start inviting your immediate team. | Paying for a small team is well under the typical auto-approved | expenses limit, and when you've sunk your cost, got a bunch of | people onboard, and proved the value, only then do you go to IT | to get it rolled out across the business. | | Individuals using this sort of thing, termed "shadow IT", is a | good way to grow usage. This feature of docs seems well | positioned to grow that way even if DocuSign is available. | | [^1]: I worked on a team that was required by the business to | use MS Teams. While we waited for the Teams workspace to be | provisioned and all the authentication crap to be sorted out we | signed up for Slack, invited everyone, and got work done for | the 6 months it took to get a working Teams workspace. | themagician wrote: | [flagged] | akulbe wrote: | [flagged] | xnx wrote: | Happy to see more useful features added to tools I already use. | Along with improvements to Google Forms, I expect a lot of light | DocuSign and JotForm users will cancel their subscriptions. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-08-10 23:00 UTC)