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

22100

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

9208

Filter by Idea status

Filter by category

970 Ideas

Most Replies

Most Votes

Newest First

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|21 days 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|22 days 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|22 days 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|22 days 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|23 days 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|23 days 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|26 days ago

claudia sallustioTroubleshooter

BASIC SORTING AND FILTERS FUNCTIONS FOR LARGE VOLUMN OF AGREEMENTS NEEDED URGENTLYIdea Submitted

BASIC SORTING AND FILTERS FUNCTIONS FOR LARGE VOLUMN OF AGREEMENTS NEEDED URGENTLY. I WOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE NEED FOR TAGS. REPORTING IS ALSO VERY LIMITED. I CANT SORT BY FOLDER WHICH IS THE ONLY WAY I CAN TRY TO KEEP A TRACK OF WHICH AGREEMENTS I HAVE ALREADY DOWNLOADED.

Forum|Forum|26 days 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|27 days ago

TomDNew 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|27 days 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|28 days 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|28 days 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|28 days 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|29 days 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|29 days 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|30 days 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|30 days 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|30 days 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|30 days 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|30 days 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|30 days 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|30 days ago

RamarqesNew Voice

Waffle menudo shows the Organization option name but Admin.Idea Submitted

Hi team,I have a suggestion.Could you please consider updating the Waffle menu to reflect the Organization Admin instead of Admin, as it has caused confusion? Or you could include the Organization option at the main menu near Admin, like: Home | Agreements | Templates | Insights | Admin | OrganizationThanks for your attention.

Forum|Forum|30 days ago

RamarqesNew Voice

Move a received, unsigned envelope from one account to another.Idea Submitted

Hi team,I have a suggestion,Could you please consider creating a new feature (A Button: Switch Inbox) to allow rotating the received envelope to another account? Sometimes the envelopes are sent to the personal account; this enhancement ensures they won't be lost if the free account is closed and the envelopes are moved to the corporate account, for example.The idea is to ensure that the correct account receives the envelope, so I would be able to rotate it to the correct one. Because sometimes the "Set as default” action was not performed before envelope creation, basically, Docusign will send the envelope to the old account, which could be a free one, until the corporate one is set as default. Also, the users have free accounts with the corporate email address, which sometimes causes this behavior.Thanks for your attention.

Forum|Forum|30 days ago

hbkNew Voice

option to automatically place initials for each signer in a fixed position on every pageIdea Submitted

When creating a Docusign e-signature request for a long contract, the Auto-place function can be useful, but it does not always work as expected and leads to a suboptimal user experience. For example, I worked on a 290-page contract where only the first 40 pages shared the same layout. The 'auto-place' function only applied to those pages, meaning I had to manually add initials for two signatories across the remaining 250 pages. In addition, the fields were placed on top of the text rather than near it. Adjusting the auto-placed fields in a large document also caused timeouts or loading errors. A more efficient solution would be an option to automatically place initials for each signer in a fixed position on every page (e.g. bottom left for one signer and bottom right for another). This would allow users to simply scroll through the document and make minor adjustments to the placement if needed, instead of manually placing fields page by page and switching between signers. While initialling every page may not be necessary for simple agreements, it can be important for high-value contracts with extensive technical documentation. Introducing this feature would significantly improve usability and save considerable time, and it seems relatively straightforward to implement.

Forum|Forum|1 month ago