[HN Gopher] We are building the next DocuSign
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       We are building the next DocuSign
        
       Author : esaidm
       Score  : 13 points
       Date   : 2025-03-27 20:51 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (sgnly.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (sgnly.com)
        
       | brailsafe wrote:
       | Redefining (automatable) fillable PDF documents into a totally
       | different form field and email system using string replacement?
        
         | esaidm wrote:
         | We take any existing signed document, remove the variables of
         | your choice, and create a new, identical document template. You
         | can then use it for signature purposes.
         | 
         | Additionally, we automatically fill in repetitive information
         | using the data we collect.
        
           | brailsafe wrote:
           | How does this replace an an official employment form in any
           | meaningful way?
        
       | biwills wrote:
       | Please add links on your site to your Terms of Service and
       | Privacy Policy.
        
         | esaidm wrote:
         | Done!
        
       | numbers wrote:
       | domains don't matter that much but that missing `i` will trip up
       | a lot of people.
        
         | esaidm wrote:
         | Yes! We will change it for sure, but that only cost us 10 box.
         | But yeah, it causes confussion.
        
       | sangupta wrote:
       | Links at the bottom of the site to X/LinkedIn/Contact
       | Email/Github are all broken.
        
       | kylephillipsau wrote:
       | I read it as snuggly until I realised what it was supposed to
       | represent
        
         | lyingnig wrote:
         | i read it as "lying nigs" but im dyslexic. misreading things is
         | cray cray and hilarious!
        
       | jreynan wrote:
       | What's the difference with Docusign, Dropboxsign, etc?
        
         | esaidm wrote:
         | We transform the PDF into a template and identify automatically
         | the variables. We automatically fill in repetitive information
         | using the data we collect in previously docs.
        
       | mmwako wrote:
       | this guys are going to rebrand so hard...
        
       | pedalpete wrote:
       | I currently use GrabSign, which doesn't have a great UI tbh, but
       | I've never tried docusign.
       | 
       | I'm not sure I understand your comparison to traditional process.
       | 
       | It looks like you are not taking a PDF as an input. So I am
       | supposed to write my documents in sgnly? Curly braces makes sense
       | to engineers, I don't think the average person really understands
       | that (though I could be wrong).
       | 
       | Why is what you are doing 10x better than docusign? "Up and
       | running within a week?" I was getting documents signed with
       | grabsign within 20 mintues. But maybe I'm not the target user,
       | but then who is?
       | 
       | Maybe I'm confused about what Docusign does, and I know they do
       | more than just manage signatures, but how do most people know/use
       | them?
       | 
       | Also the sgnly domain, though nice and short, doesn't give me a
       | lot of confidence for a b2b app.
        
       | noodlesUK wrote:
       | I don't really understand what this is from the landing page. Is
       | it a signature tool where you're signing an arbitrary existing
       | document? If so, I need to know whether it's legally appropriate
       | for my situation, and that means eIDAS for me.
       | 
       | Alternatively, is it a tool to manage _writing_ contracts and
       | other documents, and soliciting legally binding signatures? If
       | so, I need to understand it more.
        
         | esaidm wrote:
         | No, you upload the PDF and we grab to build a template with the
         | inputs of the variables already placed.
        
       | Molitor5901 wrote:
       | Digital document signing almost feels like it should be baked
       | into email systems by now. Having a separate service to do this
       | feel antiquated.
        
         | xnx wrote:
         | Google Workspace has it built in
         | https://workspace.google.com/resources/esignature/
        
         | DaiPlusPlus wrote:
         | > Digital document signing almost feels like it should be baked
         | into email systems by now
         | 
         | It is: S/MIME is well-supported.
         | 
         | Anything else is not a "real" signature, as far as I'm
         | concerned.
        
         | mc32 wrote:
         | SaaS are now adding e-sigs as a feature (Box, Google, etc.)
         | Some workflows still need DS but it's fewer and fewer. Box, I
         | think, can be CFR11 compliant.
        
       | recursive wrote:
       | How do you pronounce it? "We're going to use ess-jee-enn-ell-
       | why".
        
         | kulahan wrote:
         | I presume it's supposed to be "sign-ally" or something to that
         | effect? Really strange choice for a b2b app imo. Seems like
         | it'd be better for an iPhone app name than anything.
        
       | esaidm wrote:
       | What would you change on the landing?
       | 
       | The idea goes as follows: We take any existing signed document,
       | remove the variables of your choice, and create a new, identical
       | document template. You can then use it for signature purposes.
       | Additionally, we automatically fill in repetitive information
       | using the data we collect previously.
        
         | mike_d wrote:
         | You can't have an AI that fills in things automatically and
         | then expect a signature on that document to be legally binding.
         | 
         | As soon as you modify the content or suggest what someone fills
         | in, you are no longer a disinterested third party. Ask any
         | notary or go look at DocuSign, they explicitly won't advise you
         | on how to complete a form aside from basic things like making
         | sure a field isn't blank or contains a number and not a string.
        
       | chiph wrote:
       | The current problems we're having are DS covering up adjacent
       | text with their input box. You can specify a starting width,
       | which helps sometimes. But they have a minimum font size of 9pt
       | and minimum input box height of 22px and we often need to go
       | smaller.
       | 
       | Why is this important to us? We're filling in official state
       | forms and we cannot change them in any noticeable way to give
       | their input box more room. Some states have crammed everything
       | together and we have to work around their poor design as best we
       | can.
       | 
       | That DS provides traceability, viewing history, and cryptographic
       | signatures is nice for us, and may help one day in case of a
       | lawsuit. It's not a must-have for us, but likely was important
       | for them given they originated in the real-estate document area
       | (lots of disputes there, I'm guessing)
       | 
       | What could help us is making the input box translucent, or hiding
       | it until the user navigates to it (perhaps leave a small marker
       | so they know they have to provide a value there).
       | 
       | So far as the templating, we've got that solved with Fluent (nee
       | Autotag). Most of their competitors are doing simple word
       | replacement (mail-merge) but they allow us to add logic like if-
       | else and select-case to our templates. You should look into doing
       | that too.
        
       | JumpCrisscross wrote:
       | "explained by a voice agent"
       | 
       | Does this really help?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-03-27 23:01 UTC)