Signsquid: The cool way to sign contracts online
signsquid.comI use RightSignature:
http://rightsignature.com/
I enjoy the workflow of RightSignature. I upload the doc/PDF of the contract, or import for Google Docs. I find the fields that need to be filled in, highlight them, and designate who fills it in (me or the counterparty).
I then fill in text fields using a text entry box and the signature using my mouse. They have a good system for tracking the mouse speed to show the width of the line, and the signatures look quite good with minimal effort.
When you want a counterparty to sign, they get an email asking them to follow a link. They then can fill in the fields and sign, without registering for the site. Finally, we both get a PDF of the final contract, and they store the final PDF on their site. You cannot "delete" the contract from their site once it has been executed, which corresponds to the gut feeling that the contract is cannot be undone (without executing a contract that overrides it).
I also think their design looks serious and conveys to proper gravity to a contract signing process.
RightSignture has been for a while, and like the existing solutions it send the documents by email. What legal advantage does it have over simply and directly sending the PDF by email?
With Signsquid we decided to ditch completely the hand-written signature, in favor of a better thought process. We do not go into the contract redaction process, we leave that to the expert lawers. We use a combination of a unique link, sent by email, and a unique secret code, told by phone, for each signatory. This way, we can be sure the good person signed.
As for the design, as always it is a matter of taste :)
Give the application a try, and let us know what you think.
Hopefully this doesn't sound too hypercritical - I'm not posting this simply to nitpick - but I think some of the site's English is a little off. I mean, it's readable enough, but there are a few areas where it seems like something was translated too literally from French to English.
As a specific example, in the FAQ section I found the question "For how long are the documents kept?" with the response "Yes, all signed documents are stored on our secure server for three years to ensure their integrity." A native English speaker would more likely say something like, "How long are documents stored?" "All signed documents are stored on our secure servers for three years..." Similarly, some sentences in the Legality section were a little confusing to read for the same reasons.
Again, not trying to start a flame war over grammar. But, as a potential customer to a company that would be handling my legal contracts, I'd want communication to be as clear as possible.
I know, you're right. The original texts were written in French and then translated by someone else to English. We certainly have work left to be done in that area.
I decided to post it on HN anyway to get feedback ASAP.
Thanks for the example. The original (French) question is more like "Do you keep the documents?". I'll have this fixed.
There are iPhone apps for <$2 that will let you hand sign any document and send it via through your phone that I believe works much better (and I've used for contracts and employment offers).
Given that this is $9 a month (which I consider relatively pricy) and an entirely different way of signing documents that many may not w
those are legally accepted (given that there is a signature), this is $9 a month (which I would consider relatively pricy), and this is an entirely different way of doing things that many crossparties may not be willing to deal with, whereas signing and forwarding an electronic document doesn't change their workflow in any way.
I have no idea about the market for document signing that is more secure than traditional methods.
Hey there. I'm one of the guys that co-founded this project. The main debate here is about the big squid on the home screen. Some say it's too "friendly" for a legal product. What do you think?
It reminds me of Roger (the alien) from American Dad. Not sure how I feel about that, but do agree that it seems a bit "friendly." The bulgy(sic?) right eye is what does it.
My biggest qualm is with the italicized header text. You use it as your logo text, the header, and the pricing, but it is difficult for me to clearly read.
6 items on the menu seems a bit much. While legality always seems to come up when talking about electronic signatures, I don't know if you need a completely separate item for it. Maybe Partners and Legality should go under FAQ, and Discover and About should be merged too?
How do you plan on taking market share from your larger competitors such as DocuSign, EchoSign (Adobe), HelloFax, etc.? I notice you do not have an API (yet?) and that would seem like a great way to increase your customer base (especially coming from HN).
Disclosure: I work at DocuSign
You certainly have good points.
We try to be different than DocuSign, EchoSign, etc. with the process: no hand-written signature, a secure combination of unique link and unique code, no online contract editing.
Je vais me rappeler de Signsquid justement à cause de la pieuvre. J'aime l'idée et le personnage est très bien choisi. Le lien se fait automatiquement avec l'encre.
La question prend de sa pertinence en fonction de la clientèle que vous visez.
Votre style est jeune et dynamique alors j'assume que vous vous dirigez vers ce même genre de clientèle. Les start-up par exemple. Dans l'autre sens si vous souhaitez faire affaire avec le gouvernement ou des entités reconnus pour leur image complet cravate professionnel vous misez à côté de la traque à mon avis.
Faut pas oublier que votre service est vendu par le client qui l'a acheté. Alors si pour ma compagnie je dois aller voir un client sérieux (et imposant) je me sens gêné de lui présenter une grosse pieuvre gentille.
Enfin, c'est très subjectif, il n'y a pas de bonne réponse. C'est qui votre clientèle cible au fait?
I'm not even sure what the product looks like. I think it would be helpful if you include a live demo on your website.
You can have a look at the screenshots http://signsquid.com/en/discover-signsquid/.
Also, you can try it for free for one month.
Thanks for the comment, we'll certainly discuss the possibility of adding a live demo somewhere.
Minor point: you say that "In the event of a [signature] dispute, Signsquid will assume the legal fees necessary for you to prove in court that our process guarantees your document’s electronic signature." Aside from the fact that $9/month doesn't pay for many cases, what if Signsquid loses, possibly by doing a bad job in court?
I must say I'm not the legal expert in this project. I am a developer.
One of the co-founders is a lawyer by profession. I just noticed him with your interrogation.
From my understanding (again, I'm not speaking as the legal expert), what we do in case of a dispute regarding the legality of the signature process is providing a legal expert that will explain the process and why it's legal. We are not paying for a lawyer to defend the case in court.
You can do the same on signnow.com for free. I'm the founder, and we are pushing a big update later this week.
And to be fair there is EchoSign and Docusign too, be curious what angle you are taking.
I can't speak for SignNow.com, but on our side (Signsquid), we decided to ditch completely the hand-written signature, in favor of a better thought process.
We use a combination of a unique link, sent by email, and a unique secret code, told by phone, for each signatory. This way, we can be sure the good person signed.
Also, we decided to not enter the contract redaction process. You simply upload the pdf that will be signed.
Once the contract is signed, a page that contains the audit trail (who signed and when) is appended.
How does a unique link (over insecure email) and a phonecall (to which number? how to verify speaker?) ensure the person's identity? That sounds dangerously straight forward to subvert.
You make it sound like it's totally insecure. Look at all the alternatives, and I am pretty sure we are the more secure.
Most still use a fax, which is incredibly insecure (how can you be sure who signed?). Other online solutions either use simple email reply or a hand-written signature.
Just to clarify the process, once you uploaded your file and chose the signatories, Signsquid sends a link to each signatory. Each one of them has its own unique link. Then, the sender (you), gain access to the list of codes assigned to each signatory. Again, each one of them as one unique code. You have to call them by phone to tell them the code.
If someone wanted to "hack" the process, he would have to gain access to the inbox of the user and also fake his voice over the phone.
We've had a few thousand years to figure out decent ways to authenticate paper-based documents. Presumably, one of the biggest implications of a paper-based solution is that you get some level of contestability. In the case of a signature, you get penmanship (at least to a certain degree of expert evaluation); for currency, you get the paper type, watermarking, holograms, etc.
You have very little of that in the process described by the OP. The accountability is "email is secure, and you know the person's voice." That's fine if you implicitly trust your contracting counterpart (heck, then the contract has little purpose). But it does little if they later recant or refute the signature. In the end, the most important aspect: It needs to be tested in a court of law before I'd even consider it.
I'm not sure what the "right" solution is in the digital age, but my hunch is that it will involve some sort of PK Crypto. Perhaps we're not too far from having NFC tags embedded in our body for precisely this purpose.
You're supposed to know who you're dealing with when on the phone. If you deal with someone you kinda know (met in person before or on the phone), I really don't see how it's a problem.
On the other hand, if you're doing online business, you may not be the direct public for this service.
my 2c.
They stole the Coda icon:
Not very professional.
(edit: It's been since replaced with another leaf icon)
I must admit it looks oddly similar. We did not see it on Coda site before using it. Not sure of the provenance (I will ask my designer).
As smackfu noted, the water drops are not exactly the same. But obviously, since it's very similar, we'll change it. It's very accidental and far from intentionnal.
I understand, and it's reassuring that you were not aware of it.
However, it's not "oddly similar." Yes, it's been rotated, mirrored, and slightly modified, but it's their icon and somebody blatantly stole it and tried to pass it off as their own work.
Interestingly, it actually happens so frequently with Panic's work that they have a page dedicated to people ripping off their icons: http://panic.com/extras/ripoff/
It's not quite the same icon. If you look at the water drops, they are different. Also the shading isn't the same.
Still odd though.
As a lawyer, I would prefer to avoid your overly-long and complicated signing process and just ask for a faxed or scanned and emailed copy. Both are equally valid in court.
Heck, an email confirmation by a party to the contract is now a valid method of signing/executing a contract.
So my question is: what makes squidsign better than the old fashioned/easy way or the big-name competitors in the field (i.e., Verisign, Adobe, or the other companies named elsewhere in the comments)
By email, how can you prove that the right person was behind the desk and that his outlook or email program wasn't just open and that any person could have relied ? Same goes for the fax ?
I'm not saying it's right, but convenience often trumps security. Until there's a big problem with fraud or regulation requiring increased security, most people aren't going to adopt a solution with more hoops.
Curious - on what basis is email confirmation now valid? Court precedent, a law, or something else?
The only thing that is required for the contract to be valid is the agreement of both parties. Even if you agree verbally over the phone the deal is "theoretically" valid.
The only problem with verbal agreement is that you will have a problem to prove in court that you really agreed to anything.
Almost any impartial third party confirmation will make proof simple.
So even simple email confirmation is "legal" and should be enough.