SecureDocs

Discuss your general Proclaim related queries here.
galexander
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 8:22 am
Location: Manchester
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

SecureDocs

Post by galexander »

Hi there

Looking for any opinions on SecureDocs integration - there are a couple of older posts but could do with some honest viewpoints if anyone has any recent experience of this.

Thanks

Enigma
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:01 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: SecureDocs

Post by Enigma »

Hi,

I'll try and summarize my experience with it, which has been a roller coaster :D

SecureDocs as a whole is a 'good' entry level E-Sign platform in my opinion, which has the benefits being low cost compared to other big E-Sign platforms like Adobe Sign/Echosign.

Good Points:
The perks of being developed by Eclipse, is that it integrates directly with Proclaim and becomes part of it's interface once installed. So you don't have to worry about Web services or other potentially complex or fiddily workarounds, just a few extra menus and features which i'd say are relatively quick and easy to get used to.

And to do it justice, it does exactly what it says on the tin. It lets you send out documents to be signed securely. Though, don't expect it to be much more flexible than that.

Bad Points:
The main gripes I have are that it is not very developer friendly. Granted these are personal gripes and someone else may not see these as issues, but nevertheless...

The 'secure' element of it is the password login, something which in my opinion should be optional but this cannot be turned off, so you cannot have a seamless 'click the link and sign the document' experience. This introduces the potential for the recipients to struggle to adhere to the correct formats or enter in specific data that may be required which can be off putting and frustrating.

The link itself to the securedocument is not stored until after it has been signed and imported back in to the system...which seems pointless. This renders the 'recycling' of the link null, as you cannot send the same link to the client via SMS* or another email. Instead you would be generating another document and link, which can lead to a cluttered file history. - *The SMS Feature is something that can be achieved with one of their partnered SMS providers, however I find this to be a coincidental way to monetize a broken or missing feature.

The SecureDoc's system is hosted by Eclipse, so if they have problems, so will you. To my knowledge there is no fail-over in the event of a problem at either Eclipses end or on your server, so the downtime can lead to disgruntled customers who can not sign in.

Recipients can still sign a document even if the file is closed, as such there is no option to 'Cancel' a securedocument other than accessing it as the recipient and declining it on their behalf.

They are the main gripes off the top of my head :)

Pros:
Low Cost
Great first step in to the E-Sign world
Simple to use
Can help automate a lot of processes
Easy setup

Cons:
Limited feature set
Must always have a password
No fail-over (citation needed)
No option to nullify a securedoc
URL unable to be stored

Overall, I would say I would see Securedocs as the cost effective stepping stone towards a bigger and better product. You will be able to get going, but I would say you are going to want to see it as a short term solution. Ultimately, it all comes down to the usage of it. It can be perfect for simple day to day stuff, but for much larger scale, you will want to invest in a more enterprise level solution.

galexander
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 8:22 am
Location: Manchester
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: SecureDocs

Post by galexander »

That's great info, thanks Enigma.

revellbikes
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:44 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: SecureDocs

Post by revellbikes »

I'll just add to your nullify point Enigma, secure docs can be given an expiry number of days. Whilst it's not a nullify option as such... It would have the same effect. You could also look to change the customers password details after closure should you wish.

I've had good experiences with it but have no other solutions to compare it to. I know many people have integrated with Adobe's version so it'd be good for some of those people to share their reasons for this.

Enigma
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:01 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: SecureDocs

Post by Enigma »

Hi Revel,

That's great! When I asked Eclipse regarding it we've been told it isn't possible :lol:

JT1990
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue May 01, 2018 4:09 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: SecureDocs

Post by JT1990 »

Enigma wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:16 am
Hi Revel,

That's great! When I asked Eclipse regarding it we've been told it isn't possible :lol:
You probably spoke to First line :lol:

On the right hand side of the document in WFM there's a 'Days Avail' box. Add your value in and there you go!

David P
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:33 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: SecureDocs

Post by David P »

Just to add to the nullify point as well, according to the manual you can right click the secure doc in history and 'unset' it there if the document is unactioned.

We've been told that they are planning to bring SecureDocs+ functionality into TouchPoint. I think that will make it very useful for form filling as well as e-signatures and could be a massive gain for us.

Enigma
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:01 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: SecureDocs

Post by Enigma »

Hi All,

I thought it would be worthwhile me revisiting this to clarify some of the "Bad Points" I originally listed here. I've been using it a lot more the past 6 months and thanks to the help on the forum have improved my understanding of how certain features work.

Perhaps I had a grumpy day with it when I first wrote this post :lol:
Enigma wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:40 pm
Bad Points:
The main gripes I have are that it is not very developer friendly. Granted these are personal gripes and someone else may not see these as issues, but nevertheless...
EDIT: I mention how it is not very developer friendly...I'd like to retract that statement! It has a small learning curve, and some of the features are not really used in every scenario, but what is actually there is not too complicated to get used to. The Manuals regarding it, while not fully fleshed out, to be fair do offer good insight.

I suppose it is one of those things, if you don't use it, naturally you are probably not going to understand it as it was in my case :D
Enigma wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:40 pm
The 'secure' element of it is the password login, something which in my opinion should be optional but this cannot be turned off, so you cannot have a seamless 'click the link and sign the document' experience. This introduces the potential for the recipients to struggle to adhere to the correct formats or enter in specific data that may be required which can be off putting and frustrating.
EDIT: It makes sense to have it secure with a login. I still think the option of not having it would be beneficial, as you can implement other secure policies prior, e.g. confirming a recipients email adresss, as ultimately the recipient needs to have the ability to log in to the email address. If this is compromised, then surely the onus is on the recipient provided you do your policy checks in the first place. You ultimately have the flexibility of using different fields to allow them to log in. E.g. we used to use DOB, but it did not automatically populate the forward slashes, so that was a common issue for recipients trying to log in. You could instead opt for a RANDOM Number string or their something with less hassle!
Enigma wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:40 pm
The link itself to the securedocument is not stored until after it has been signed and imported back in to the system...which seems pointless. This renders the 'recycling' of the link null, as you cannot send the same link to the client via SMS* or another email. Instead you would be generating another document and link, which can lead to a cluttered file history. - *The SMS Feature is something that can be achieved with one of their partnered SMS providers, however I find this to be a coincidental way to monetize a broken or missing feature.
EDIT: You actually can send it via SMS. I am unsure if this was a feature implemented after the fact, if not I hold my hand up to being oblivious! I saw some other posts on the forum that brought this to light and have since used this myself. So, you can send a link via SMS to the client, but you have to jump through a couple of hoops. JT1990 kindly explains this - viewtopic.php?p=2816#p2816
Enigma wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:40 pm
Recipients can still sign a document even if the file is closed, as such there is no option to 'Cancel' a securedocument other than accessing it as the recipient and declining it on their behalf.
EDIT: As a couple of the guys in this topic mentioned, you can set up the expiry dates for the securedoc, or cancel it within the history.
Enigma wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:40 pm
Cons:
Limited feature set
Must always have a password
No fail-over (citation needed)
No option to nullify a securedoc
URL unable to be stored
Re the "Limited feature set" - I reverse my comment on this, it does what you need it to do really, sign documents. Compared to the E-Sign Titans in the industry, you can argue it has less features, but it still does the basics!

Re the "No option to nullify a securedoc" - No longer an issue due to built in features
Re the "URL unable to be stored" - No longer an issue due to TinyURL method

Something else I would like to add is that, I highly recommend having Adobe Acrobat Pro in order to edit and unlock more functionality with SecureDocs. Having it allows you to easily create new PDF forms to work with SecureDocs.

galexander
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 8:22 am
Location: Manchester
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: SecureDocs

Post by galexander »

Thanks for the update.

We have had some frustrating issues with it:
• Tab order in PDF forms was out of order when logging on to complete it as a user
• Error message when using docs based on multiple forms

But both of these were eventually fixed by Eclipse/Access. Think the main thing that would sell it to our departments would be if it was picking up existing history items rather than sending docs on-the-fly where all editing has to be done at the time of sending.

Interested in more info on a couple of your comments – how do we cancel/nullify a SecureDoc in history. Also the ability to store the URL, not something we had considered, why should it be stored and how?

Enigma
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:01 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: SecureDocs

Post by Enigma »

Hi galexander,

TAB order I imagine is something most recipients would probably not even be aware of or notice. I don't imagine many people use TAB to navigate through fields, though I could be wrong!

That is likely down to the order the fields are showing in Adobe Acrobat Pro for example. Perhaps some near the top of the page were created after those in the middle.

I have not encountered any errors with multiple forms, but I always make a dedicated Form, e.g. the N235, I have a N235-SD just to keep it separate.

Regarding nullifying the document, based on what revelbikes and David have suggested
David P wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:44 pm
Just to add to the nullify point as well, according to the manual you can right click the secure doc in history and 'unset' it there if the document is unactioned.
However I can not see this option when I right click either the email or the document. Not sure if something needs setting up or ticking in User Profiles (just had a quick scout but didn't see anything obvious). I have just raised a ticket with Access to find out if this has been removed or not.

Alternatively...my tried and tested method was to just log in to the SecureDoc myself and press Decline :P

Revels suggestion below about changing the securedoc password/s when the case is closed has my endorsement if the right click option no longer exists though!
revellbikes wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:22 am
I'll just add to your nullify point Enigma, secure docs can be given an expiry number of days. Whilst it's not a nullify option as such... It would have the same effect. You could also look to change the customers password details after closure should you wish.


Regarding storing the link, this was initially when I was looking for a way to include the link in an SMS to send to the recipient. Little did I know of the sneaky little tickbox that converts it to a TinyURL and can be included in an SMS that way, without having to store the link per se.

So to answer your question, so it can be used in other forms of contact other than just the securedoc email you would traditionally send. Since its fairly common for people to have smartphones, getting a text and clicking the link to get to the document seems the most streamlined and sensible approach.

I originally was hoping to store the link in an alpha field and then just pop that field in to an SMS, but as mentioned above, the TinyURL feature renders that unnecessary.