Anonymous
My feedback
30 results found
-
48 votes
We see a lot of value in this request and our team is gathering feedback and additional use cases regarding this suggestion.
Please add your comments about how you would use metadata and how it will improve your experience with Box Sign. Support this suggestion so we can prioritize it accordingly.
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
29 votes
Our team is gathering feedback and additional use cases regarding this suggestion.
Please add your comments about your specific needs and use cases:
- Would you prefer to configure the date format on the request level or organization level? Why?
- Will you constantly adjust the date format depending on recipients or it's a one time setting?
- What date format is ideal for you?
- Anything else that would help us to design and build a great solution to improve your experience.
_____
Support this suggestion so we can prioritize it accordingly.
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
(1aQ) Would you prefer to configure the date format on the request level or organization level?
(1aQ response1) Preference would be to have both options available.(1bQ) Why?
(1bQ response) Because if you are using the Ready-Sign link which typically is used for high volume, low touch documents, then it is more feasible to set at the organizational level. However, if you are sending out a customized signature request that typically won't be duplicated, it should have the ability to set at the request level.(2aQ) Will you constantly adjust the date format depending on recipients or it's a one time setting?
(2aQ response) Refer to answers given in 1aQ response and 1bQ response.(3aQ) What date format is ideal for you?
(3aQ response) European format. DDMMYYYY
(4aQ) Anything else that would help us to design and build a great solution to improve your experience
(4aQ response) Prioritize and adopt the document naming convention sooner rather than later. For high volume, minimal touch documents, the naming convention is an absolute NIGHTMARE!
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
16 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
61 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
The ability to have a "stamp" (in Japan I think it is called a "hanko stamp") that can be used for anything within the signature process. Preferably, have it look like a seal of sorts, where it could have a company logo and then say "ABC Co. Legal" so the other internal company members know that this is an approved document for signature.
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
30 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
43 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
13 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
137 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
Yes, there is a tremendous amount of value to have completed BoxSign fields filled out and then allow to become metadata. This is necessary for companies that use your BoxSign feature for high volume, low touch agreements (such as a NDA). For example, one typically tags within the document such things as the company name, the effective date, the signatory, etc. Within your enterprise level subscription, we should have the ability during the tagging stage to nominate the fields "company name" and "effective date" within the advance feature portion of the tag that says "yes - identify as metadata" and this could be done by the addition of simply checking a box so that this occurs upon execution. And then the collection of that metadata then becomes the naming convention.