Terms and Conditions with a twist

27 Oct 2008 - 4:17am
5 years ago
40 replies
1439 reads
Brian Mclaughlin
2008

I am looking for sample of Terms and Conditions acceptance with a bit of a twist.

Generally when I have set up T&C acceptance in the past, there is a scrollable box with all the legal text followed by either a check box to say that you have read/accept the T&C or there are radio button for “yes” and “no” about accepting them. In either case a person never has to actually read, or even scroll to the bottom of, the T&C text. The common stuff...

However I have a client that will not accept (no pun intended) this. Their legal team is insisting that the user is forced to at least reach the bottom of the T&C before they can accept them. They do understand that this does not mean that anyone had read the text, but they want to be able to say that at least someone has been forced to reach the end of the text before accepting it.

While I have some ideas about how to go about this, I was wondering if anyone knew of some sample that are online now that are doing this.

BTW – This is not something that is arguable with the legal team about not having this capability.

Thanks -

Comments

27 Oct 2008 - 4:59am
Steve Baty
2009

The online game - Eve Online eve-online.com - implements this for their T&C
during the installation. When you scroll to the bottom of the text you get
the option to accept or decline - but not before. This is an installed
application rather than a Web site, but the principle is as you've described
it.

Regards
Steve

2008/10/27 McLaughlin Designs <info at bmclaughlindesigns.com>

> I am looking for sample of Terms and Conditions acceptance with a bit of a
> twist.
>
> Generally when I have set up T&C acceptance in the past, there is a
> scrollable box with all the legal text followed by either a check box to say
> that you have read/accept the T&C or there are radio button for "yes" and
> "no" about accepting them. In either case a person never has to actually
> read, or even scroll to the bottom of, the T&C text. The common stuff...
>
> However I have a client that will not accept (no pun intended) this. Their
> legal team is insisting that the user is forced to at least reach the bottom
> of the T&C before they can accept them. They do understand that this does
> not mean that anyone had read the text, but they want to be able to say that
> at least someone has been forced to reach the end of the text before
> accepting it.
>
> While I have some ideas about how to go about this, I was wondering if
> anyone knew of some sample that are online now that are doing this.
>
> BTW – This is not something that is arguable with the legal team about not
> having this capability.
>
>
> Thanks -
> <http://www.ixda.org/help>

--
----------------------------------------------
Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths), M.EC, MBA
Principal Consultant
Meld Consulting
M: +61 417 061 292
E: stevebaty at meld.com.au
Twitter: docbaty

Blog: http://docholdsfourth.blogspot.com
Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com

27 Oct 2008 - 8:19am
Andy Polaine
2008

It's such an insane way of thinking about T&Cs though because it
assumes people actually read them. Nobody does. At least nobody that I
know.

I once told a legal team from a bank that calling the legal info
"important information" was terrible because it isn't important to
anyone except other lawyers. Certainly not someone using the website.
They agreed to "legal information" on the button instead, which of
course meant nobody read it but they were covered.

Sigh.

p.s. To answer your question, sort of, Apple's installers do something
similar. They show a screen of legal cack, then when you just hit
continue it pops up an "Accept" "Don't Accept" alert that you have to
click on one of to continue.

Best,

Andy

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Andy Polaine

Research | Writing | Strategy
Interaction Concept Design
Education Futures

Twitter: apolaine
Skype: apolaine

http://playpen.polaine.com
http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com
http://www.omnium.net.au
http://www.antirom.com

27 Oct 2008 - 8:26am
Chauncey Wilson
2007

Terms and conditions can be important and they do impose legal obligations
so perhaps we should encourage reading them through good design. I bought
some clip art once and since my wife is an IP lawyer was always encouraged
to read the Terms and Conditions I discovered that I could use the clip art
for up to one hundreds copies per presentation, but after that I owed the
company some additional fees. If you own a small company and use open
source software, you can lose some of the rights to your own intellectual
property if you don't read the fine print when you integrate an open source
utility with your own code.

Perhaps we should encourage people to read the terms and conditions.

Now I will wait to get skewered :-).

Chauncey

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Andy Polaine <apolaine at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's such an insane way of thinking about T&Cs though because it assumes
> people actually read them. Nobody does. At least nobody that I know.
>
> I once told a legal team from a bank that calling the legal info "important
> information" was terrible because it isn't important to anyone except other
> lawyers. Certainly not someone using the website. They agreed to "legal
> information" on the button instead, which of course meant nobody read it but
> they were covered.
>
> Sigh.
>
> p.s. To answer your question, sort of, Apple's installers do something
> similar. They show a screen of legal cack, then when you just hit continue
> it pops up an "Accept" "Don't Accept" alert that you have to click on one of
> to continue.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Andy
>
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> Andy Polaine
>
> Research | Writing | Strategy
> Interaction Concept Design
> Education Futures
>
> Twitter: apolaine
> Skype: apolaine
>
> http://playpen.polaine.com
> http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com
> http://www.omnium.net.au
> http://www.antirom.com
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

27 Oct 2008 - 8:28am
Mark Canlas
2003

The same applies to the immensely popular and disruptive game World of
Warcraft. After every major update, the user is forced to at least scroll
all the way to the bottom of the terms before Accept or Decline are
accessible.

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Steve Baty <stevebaty at gmail.com> wrote:

> The online game - Eve Online eve-online.com - implements this for their
> T&C
> during the installation. When you scroll to the bottom of the text you get
> the option to accept or decline - but not before. This is an installed
> application rather than a Web site, but the principle is as you've
> described
> it.
>
> Regards
> Steve
>
> 2008/10/27 McLaughlin Designs <info at bmclaughlindesigns.com>
>
> > I am looking for sample of Terms and Conditions acceptance with a bit of
> a
> > twist.
> >
> > Generally when I have set up T&C acceptance in the past, there is a
> > scrollable box with all the legal text followed by either a check box to
> say
> > that you have read/accept the T&C or there are radio button for "yes" and
> > "no" about accepting them. In either case a person never has to actually
> > read, or even scroll to the bottom of, the T&C text. The common stuff...
> >
> > However I have a client that will not accept (no pun intended) this.
> Their
> > legal team is insisting that the user is forced to at least reach the
> bottom
> > of the T&C before they can accept them. They do understand that this does
> > not mean that anyone had read the text, but they want to be able to say
> that
> > at least someone has been forced to reach the end of the text before
> > accepting it.
> >
> > While I have some ideas about how to go about this, I was wondering if
> > anyone knew of some sample that are online now that are doing this.
> >
> > BTW – This is not something that is arguable with the legal team about
> not
> > having this capability.
> >
> >
> > Thanks -
> > <http://www.ixda.org/help>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------
> Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths), M.EC, MBA
> Principal Consultant
> Meld Consulting
> M: +61 417 061 292
> E: stevebaty at meld.com.au
> Twitter: docbaty
>
> Blog: http://docholdsfourth.blogspot.com
> Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

27 Oct 2008 - 8:47am
Jack L. Moffett
2005

On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Andy Polaine wrote:

> It's such an insane way of thinking about T&Cs though because it
> assumes people actually read them. Nobody does. At least nobody that
> I know.

Just yesterday, my 8-year-old daughter was signing into Webkinz, and
due to the fact that we had just replaced a failed hard drive, the
cookie wasn't there to say that the T&Cs had already been agreed to.
She called mom in because a screen "with a whole bunch of words" came
up, and she didn't know what to do. She explained that she had started
trying to read it, but she was having a hard time and there was too
much.

From the mouths of babes.

Best,
Jack

Jack L. Moffett
Interaction Designer
inmedius
412.459.0310 x219
http://www.inmedius.com

In our society,
the scarce factor is not information,
it is time to attend to information.

- Herb Simon

27 Oct 2008 - 8:51am
Andy Polaine
2008

> Perhaps we should encourage people to read the terms and conditions.

Or perhaps we should not have quite so many terms and conditions and
everyone relax a bit more. Copyright is in a tailspin anyway...

Best,

Andy

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Andy Polaine

Research | Writing | Strategy
Interaction Concept Design
Education Futures

Twitter: apolaine
Skype: apolaine

http://playpen.polaine.com
http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com
http://www.omnium.net.au
http://www.antirom.com

27 Oct 2008 - 9:03am
Carolynn
2008

Slightly away from the original topic, Chauncey I think you raise a
great point... I wonder if the lawyers who insist T&Cs are prominent
and must be fully 'eye-balled' to be accepted would be willing to
take it a step further and look at the usability of their document?
Maybe creating an index of important points in the end-users language
(ie. not legal mumbo jumbo) and then reference the full text below?
That way users are more likely to skim it, pick up relevant points
and hopefully read further instead of thinking 'oh dear, yes I
accept because it's too painful to read' or in Jack's daughter's
case, actually wasting valuable years trying to understand :-)
I'm thinking something similar in structure to the W3C Accessibility
checkpoints doc, but obviously tailored for legal content:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html
What do you think?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34863

27 Oct 2008 - 9:08am
Mark Canlas
2003

Great intention, for sure. But doesn't that make the situation even more
complex? You'd have to account for scenarios like "I agreed to what was
mentioned in the Simple English!" versus "Well, no, you agreed to the
legalise. The Simple English and raw versions have no technical relation to
one another" in cases where the Simple English version fails to mention some
sort of feature or caveat.

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Carolynn Stanford <
carolynn.stanford at gmail.com> wrote:

> Slightly away from the original topic, Chauncey I think you raise a
> great point... I wonder if the lawyers who insist T&Cs are prominent
> and must be fully 'eye-balled' to be accepted would be willing to
> take it a step further and look at the usability of their document?
> Maybe creating an index of important points in the end-users language
> (ie. not legal mumbo jumbo) and then reference the full text below?
> That way users are more likely to skim it, pick up relevant points
> and hopefully read further instead of thinking 'oh dear, yes I
> accept because it's too painful to read' or in Jack's daughter's
> case, actually wasting valuable years trying to understand :-)
> I'm thinking something similar in structure to the W3C Accessibility
> checkpoints doc, but obviously tailored for legal content:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html
> What do you think?
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34863
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

27 Oct 2008 - 9:17am
Andy Polaine
2008

> Great intention, for sure. But doesn't that make the situation even
> more complex? You'd have to account for scenarios like "I agreed to
> what was
> mentioned in the Simple English!" versus "Well, no, you agreed to
> the legalise. The Simple English and raw versions have no technical
> relation to
> one another" in cases where the Simple English version fails to
> mention some sort of feature or caveat.

Yes, I imagine that would happen. Lawyers write in that convoluted way
in order not to be misinterpreted. Ironic huh?

The law is an ass.

Best,

Andy

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Andy Polaine

Research | Writing | Strategy
Interaction Concept Design
Education Futures

Twitter: apolaine
Skype: apolaine

http://playpen.polaine.com
http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com
http://www.omnium.net.au
http://www.antirom.com

27 Oct 2008 - 9:30am
Carolynn
2008

Can't we make that the lawyers problem? ;-)

Seriously, I wasn't thinking of re-writing the doc, more like a
layman's reference... take for example Chauncey's case above about
limited use of the clip art graphic. That's really important
information that most people will miss. So the reference statement
could say something along the lines of:

'Images are only free for a specified number of uses. *link: Refer
to paragraph 93*

So it was more of a highlighting guide than a summary, and you would
have to read the legal version of the statement, but the point is you
would know there was something that was applicable to you and would
read it instead of accepting and praying, and possibly ending up with
a horrible surprise and then feeling obliged to read every legal
statement presented to you thereafter... oh the horror!

I guess we would need to take a legal doc and test the theory, but I
think it could prove interesting and certainly helpful to the end
user

(ps. I work in e-com web development so my perspective is from the
shopping side of T&Cs)

:-)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34863

27 Oct 2008 - 9:41am
Chauncey Wilson
2007

Actually....

Terms and conditions are complex and in the USA, states generally follow the
UCC, the Uniform Commercial Code, which generally harmonizes all the
different laws into one that is complex, but can be used across state
borders and one that lawyers recognize across the USA. So, complex terms
and conditions are that way partly because of the many slightly different
state (and international laws).

Chauncey

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Andy Polaine <andy at polaine.com> wrote:

> Great intention, for sure. But doesn't that make the situation even more
>> complex? You'd have to account for scenarios like "I agreed to what was
>> mentioned in the Simple English!" versus "Well, no, you agreed to the
>> legalise. The Simple English and raw versions have no technical relation to
>> one another" in cases where the Simple English version fails to mention
>> some sort of feature or caveat.
>>
>
> Yes, I imagine that would happen. Lawyers write in that convoluted way in
> order not to be misinterpreted. Ironic huh?
>
> The law is an ass.
>
> Best,
>
> Andy
>
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> Andy Polaine
>
> Research | Writing | Strategy
> Interaction Concept Design
> Education Futures
>
> Twitter: apolaine
> Skype: apolaine
>
> http://playpen.polaine.com
> http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com
> http://www.omnium.net.au
> http://www.antirom.com
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

27 Oct 2008 - 10:05am
Anonymous

Here some random thoughts.

It occurs to me that you could do something like Creative Commons, for instance: the "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported" license has a proper legal document at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode   but they also have the "Human readable summary" http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/  where they say "This is a human-readable summary of the Legal Code (the full license)."  I'm pointing at this, because the human-readable summary is probably what you really need non-legal people to read, and what people would be more interested in, since it makes sense, because most of us are not lawyers. The point being that it might be possible to get people curious about a full T&C through a human-readable version, and it might be actually a better way to introduce people to legal terms.

Best,

Leonardo.

----- Original Message -----
From: McLaughlin Designs <info at bmclaughlindesigns.com>
Date: Monday, October 27, 2008 4:46 am
Subject: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
To: discuss at ixda.org

> I am looking for sample of Terms and Conditions acceptance with
> a bit of a twist.
>
> Generally when I have set up T&C acceptance in the past, there
> is a scrollable box with all the legal text followed by either a
> check box to say that you have read/accept the T&C or there are
> radio button for “yes” and “no” about accepting them. In either
> case a person never has to actually read, or even scroll to the
> bottom of, the T&C text. The common stuff...
>
> However I have a client that will not accept (no pun intended)
> this. Their legal team is insisting that the user is forced to
> at least reach the bottom of the T&C before they can accept
> them. They do understand that this does not mean that anyone had
> read the text, but they want to be able to say that at least
> someone has been forced to reach the end of the text before
> accepting it.
>
> While I have some ideas about how to go about this, I was
> wondering if anyone knew of some sample that are online now that
> are doing this.
>
> BTW – This is not something that is arguable with the legal team
> about not having this capability.
>
>
> Thanks -
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

27 Oct 2008 - 10:51am
Andy Polaine
2008

> "This is a human-readable summary of the Legal Code (the full
> license)."

Are they suggesting that lawyers aren't human? ;-)

27 Oct 2008 - 10:49am
James Page
2008

In the UK there is a campaign to make legal contracts simpler to understand.
See:-

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/
they have a list of guides available here:-
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/guides.htm

and a software tool for inspecting websites.
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/DrivelDefence.html

James

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Chauncey Wilson
<chauncey.wilson at gmail.com>wrote:

> Actually....
>
> Terms and conditions are complex and in the USA, states generally follow
> the
> UCC, the Uniform Commercial Code, which generally harmonizes all the
> different laws into one that is complex, but can be used across state
> borders and one that lawyers recognize across the USA. So, complex terms
> and conditions are that way partly because of the many slightly different
> state (and international laws).
>
> Chauncey
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Andy Polaine <andy at polaine.com> wrote:
>
> > Great intention, for sure. But doesn't that make the situation even more
> >> complex? You'd have to account for scenarios like "I agreed to what was
> >> mentioned in the Simple English!" versus "Well, no, you agreed to the
> >> legalise. The Simple English and raw versions have no technical relation
> to
> >> one another" in cases where the Simple English version fails to mention
> >> some sort of feature or caveat.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, I imagine that would happen. Lawyers write in that convoluted way in
> > order not to be misinterpreted. Ironic huh?
> >
> > The law is an ass.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> > Andy Polaine
> >
> > Research | Writing | Strategy
> > Interaction Concept Design
> > Education Futures
> >
> > Twitter: apolaine
> > Skype: apolaine
> >
> > http://playpen.polaine.com
> > http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com
> > http://www.omnium.net.au
> > http://www.antirom.com
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
> >
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

27 Oct 2008 - 11:22am
Katie Albers
2005

At 2:19 PM +0100 10/27/08, Andy Polaine wrote:

<snip>

>Sigh.
>
>p.s. To answer your question, sort of, Apple's installers do
>something similar. They show a screen of legal cack, then when you
>just hit continue it pops up an "Accept" "Don't Accept" alert that
>you have to click on one of to continue.

Just to be a bit compulsive here...You actually have to hit "Accept"
to continue. "Don't Accept" will shut down the installer.

Katie
--
Katie Albers, Senior Director
Web-Based Services
Mary-Margaret Network
Find. Grow. Work. Play.
+1 310 356 7550 (voice)
+1 877 662 3777 x 709
katie at mary-margaret.com
http://www.mary-margaret.com

27 Oct 2008 - 11:59am
Predrag Koncar
2008

Commission Junction is using that kind of T&C form in the application
process.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34863

27 Oct 2008 - 12:10pm
Eva Kaniasty
2007

Perfect timing for this discussion. I get to copy & paste my thoughts from
another list. :)

I think this is an interesting area for us usability folks to talk about.
Does legalese really have to be written in a style that is inaccessible to
99% of the population?
I would argue that there is a way to express even the most complex legal
ideas in language that can be understood by the rest of us.

I also think that the tradition of the 6 page terms & conditions is often a
subterfuge used to slip in terms that users would never agree to if those
same terms were put forth in a briefer/clearer form. Legalese is a way to
pay lip service to transparency while hiding behind an implementation that
is anything but. To me, the very importance of legal considerations argues
for making those considerations clear to those who are unwittingly entering
into legal agreements by using websites or software. Some recent examples
that come to mind are sites whose user agreements conveniently hand over
rights to any user-generated content to themselves.

Has anybody seen examples of sites that manage to cover themselves legally
while using language that is clear and transparent? I have seen some
examples on newer websites, but now for the life of me I can't remember
where.

-eva

27 Oct 2008 - 12:23pm
Chauncey Wilson
2007

The underlying issue here is how legal forms are evaluated. We can evaluate
whether people understand the terms, but that is not the same as the
evaluation that goes on in court. So, apart from all the opinion about
reading comprehension, is there any empirical data on the efficacy of
simplified legal forms over more complex legal forms.

I see an assumption in these discussion that "no one reads the T&Cs", so is
it possible that we are making assumptions without digging in to the
details. Perhaps there are many good T&C's but we rarely look at them so we
are biased toward only the worst examples.

Chauncey

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Eva Kaniasty <kaniasty at gmail.com> wrote:

> Perfect timing for this discussion. I get to copy & paste my thoughts
> from
> another list. :)
>
> I think this is an interesting area for us usability folks to talk about.
> Does legalese really have to be written in a style that is inaccessible to
> 99% of the population?
> I would argue that there is a way to express even the most complex legal
> ideas in language that can be understood by the rest of us.
>
> I also think that the tradition of the 6 page terms & conditions is often a
> subterfuge used to slip in terms that users would never agree to if those
> same terms were put forth in a briefer/clearer form. Legalese is a way to
> pay lip service to transparency while hiding behind an implementation that
> is anything but. To me, the very importance of legal considerations
> argues
> for making those considerations clear to those who are unwittingly entering
> into legal agreements by using websites or software. Some recent examples
> that come to mind are sites whose user agreements conveniently hand over
> rights to any user-generated content to themselves.
>
> Has anybody seen examples of sites that manage to cover themselves legally
> while using language that is clear and transparent? I have seen some
> examples on newer websites, but now for the life of me I can't remember
> where.
>
> -eva
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

27 Oct 2008 - 12:42pm
Santiago Bustelo
2010

There is a way to ensure users actually read the T&C:

1. Place a link or button labeled "I read the Terms & Conditions"
at the bottom of the terms...
2. ...leading to a multiple choice test on legal issues, that users
must pass in order to continue.

For extra points, change the questions on page refresh. That will
prevent users from cheating, i.e., going back to find the answers.
Only truthful users, who truly understand the T&C, will be able to
proceed.

That would make lawyers happy, and the process as user-friendly as a
subpoena ;-)

--

Santiago Bustelo // icograma
Buenos Aires, Argentina

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34863

27 Oct 2008 - 12:43pm
Santiago Bustelo
2010

On Bruce Tognazzi's words:

"it is the job of every designer to blunt and, where possible,
eliminate the lawyer's attempts to sabotage your company's
products".

Full article: http://www.asktog.com/columns/049Lawyers.html

--

Santiago Bustelo // icograma
Buenos Aires, Argentina

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34863

27 Oct 2008 - 12:55pm
Katie Albers
2005

At 1:23 PM -0400 10/27/08, Chauncey Wilson wrote:
>The underlying issue here is how legal forms are evaluated. We can evaluate
>whether people understand the terms, but that is not the same as the
>evaluation that goes on in court. So, apart from all the opinion about
>reading comprehension, is there any empirical data on the efficacy of
>simplified legal forms over more complex legal forms.

The problem is that legal language is differently defined than
"normal" language. Take the infamous "give, devise and bequeath"
language that is standard in Wills. Don't they all mean "in event of
my death this should go to this other person?" Well, yes, but the
problem is that legally "give" applies generally to personal
property, "devise" is restricted to real estate, and "bequeath"
refers only to transferring ownership of personal property by a Will.
If a will is poorly written then it's possible that the desired
transfer would not take place because the transfer wasn't properly
described. So you can't just say "I bequeath my house to my
daughter," because she may end up owning the house but not the land
under it.

Similar issues exist throughout law...what sounds like the plain
English translation may carry or fail to carry very particular and
important pieces of the meaning of the statement.

kt

>
>I see an assumption in these discussion that "no one reads the T&Cs", so is
>it possible that we are making assumptions without digging in to the
>details. Perhaps there are many good T&C's but we rarely look at them so we
>are biased toward only the worst examples.
>
>Chauncey
>
>
>On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Eva Kaniasty <kaniasty at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perfect timing for this discussion. I get to copy & paste my thoughts
>> from
>> another list. :)
>>
>> I think this is an interesting area for us usability folks to talk about.
>> Does legalese really have to be written in a style that is inaccessible to
>> 99% of the population?
>> I would argue that there is a way to express even the most complex legal
>> ideas in language that can be understood by the rest of us.
>>
>> I also think that the tradition of the 6 page terms & conditions is often a
>> subterfuge used to slip in terms that users would never agree to if those
>> same terms were put forth in a briefer/clearer form. Legalese is a way to
>> pay lip service to transparency while hiding behind an implementation that
>> is anything but. To me, the very importance of legal considerations
>> argues
>> for making those considerations clear to those who are unwittingly entering
>> into legal agreements by using websites or software. Some recent examples
>> that come to mind are sites whose user agreements conveniently hand over
>> rights to any user-generated content to themselves.
>>
>> Has anybody seen examples of sites that manage to cover themselves legally
>> while using language that is clear and transparent? I have seen some
>> examples on newer websites, but now for the life of me I can't remember
>> where.
>>
>> -eva
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>>
>________________________________________________________________
>Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

27 Oct 2008 - 1:04pm
Loren Baxter
2007

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Katie Albers <katie at firstthought.com>wrote:
>
> Similar issues exist throughout law...what sounds like the plain English
> translation may carry or fail to carry very particular and important pieces
> of the meaning of the statement.
>
> kt

That's a great point Katie. It seems like the necessity for the legalese
won't go away. Still, the need for people to actually get some
understanding from these agreements definitely isn't being filled. It seems
like some provision needs to be made for paraphrasing and simplifying.

Imagine if the legal agreement came in two parts: the first is a "Human
Readable" version, which comes with the understanding that the fundamental
legal terms are elsewhere, with a link. The second part is your standard
legal-jabber.

That's how creative commons does it:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

Loren

-----
http://acleandesign.com

27 Oct 2008 - 1:33pm
Jay Morgan
2006

Original question about 'how to force/ensure T&C perusal prior to
agreement':Years ago (early 2000's) I was branded by this experience where a
T&C dialogue box broke my expectations: After several attempts to click
through, I figured out i *had to* scroll all the way through the T&C text
box before I could click "Accept" and succeed. Ever since then, I've been on
the watch for others. It seems the original was something like AOL or
Napster or MS Money.

I've seen three versions of this:
- scroll to bottom of text box where you find the call-to-action
- scroll to bottom before being able to click
- using a rich layer to show the call-to-action when a user tries to do
something else

Later question about 'why not have plain language terms':
Southwest Airlines, www.southwest.com, has the most accessible terms and
conditions i've ever seen on their ticket policy. In fact, I think I've seen
both Forrester and AdaptivePath cite the example. This is exceptional
because ticket policies are akin to the offspring of a perpetual motion
machine and a Rube Goldberg machine. I'm guessing SWA's came from their
corporate culture, not from the urging of a designer.

The bottom line seems to be: The company will communicate clearly with
customers when they communicate clearly with each other. I agree that it's
our responsibility to help them see the value of and accept the
responsibility for that task.

I hope this helps.
-Jay

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:17 AM, McLaughlin Designs <
info at bmclaughlindesigns.com> wrote:

> I am looking for sample of Terms and Conditions acceptance with a bit of a
> twist.
>
> Generally when I have set up T&C acceptance in the past, there is a
> scrollable box with all the legal text followed by either a check box to say
> that you have read/accept the T&C or there are radio button for "yes" and
> "no" about accepting them. In either case a person never has to actually
> read, or even scroll to the bottom of, the T&C text. The common stuff...
>
> However I have a client that will not accept (no pun intended) this. Their
> legal team is insisting that the user is forced to at least reach the bottom
> of the T&C before they can accept them. They do understand that this does
> not mean that anyone had read the text, but they want to be able to say that
> at least someone has been forced to reach the end of the text before
> accepting it.
>
> While I have some ideas about how to go about this, I was wondering if
> anyone knew of some sample that are online now that are doing this.
>
> BTW – This is not something that is arguable with the legal team about not
> having this capability.
>
>
> Thanks -
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

--
Jay A. Morgan

27 Oct 2008 - 1:34pm
Caroline Jarrett
2007

> Subject: [IxDA Discuss] Fwd: Terms and Conditions with a twist
>
> In the UK there is a campaign to make legal contracts simpler to
> understand.
> See:-
>
> http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/
> they have a list of guides available here:-
> http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/guides.htm
>
> and a software tool for inspecting websites.
> http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/DrivelDefence.html
>

The Plain English Campaign is in fact a
commercial plain language consultancy.
It has great publicity and does a lot
to raise awareness of the need for plain language,
but it did not invent plain language in the UK
and it has competitors,
most notably the Plain Language Commission
http://www.clearest.co.uk/

In the US, the most authoritative source is www.plainlanguage.gov
I've had trouble accessing this web site recently.

There's a great group called Clarity which primarily lawyers who
are interested in plain language, but has open membership
and remarkably low dues considering the quality of its journal.
US$25 per annum. http://www.clarity-international.net/

There is also Plain Language International (PLAIN),
with lots of representation from the US and Canada
and worldwide membership. PLAIN has a conference every
other year; the next one is in Sydney, Australia, in 2009,
October 15 - 17, 2009

Best
Caroline Jarrett.

27 Oct 2008 - 2:37pm
Andy Polaine
2008

Plain English campaign - can we apply that in academia too please?

Here in Germany the AGB (allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen - got to love
German nouns) are ridiculously long and companies frequently like to
wriggle out of responsibility by citing them and pointing out that you
should read them, even though they are often somewhat hidden and in
microscopic type. I once printed out a receipt from an online purchase
and got one page of invoice to ten pages of AGB. As a reasonably
fluent but non-native German speaker they're pretty much impossible to
decipher, especially as they also make references to various
paragraphs in the law books that everyone is expected to know or be
able to look up. Native German speakers can also not understand most
of them either. It makes me weep.

I think the important part here, both for the lawyers and the rest of
us, is to think about why the T&Cs are there and what the intended
purpose is. If it's just to cover arses then it is completely
irrelevant whether anyone reads them or not.

If they are intended to actually help people make an informed decision
then it's important that people can decipher them and I would go for
the Creative Commons style approach that others have mentioned. Then
arses are covered and people actually understand what they're getting
into too.

A rich layer, somewhat like some of the password/login set-ups for
sites like Plaxo might be a good way, but also cause potential
accessibility issues.

Best,

Andy

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Andy Polaine

Research | Writing | Strategy
Interaction Concept Design
Education Futures

Twitter: apolaine
Skype: apolaine

http://playpen.polaine.com
http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com
http://www.omnium.net.au
http://www.antirom.com

27 Oct 2008 - 3:50pm
Jennifer Vignone
2008

Sometimes it is worth just showing the Terms and Conditions for the
purpose of capturing the user's click-through that makes it all
worthwhile.

It is impossible to make certain that users will read the terms and
conditions. However, with the applications I have worked on, it seems that
the act of acknowledgement of the terms and conditions covers the bases as
much as the actual reading. What the acknowledgement does is provide an
indication that the user was presented with the terms and conditions, and
when they sign off on them, we capture that in a database so that we have
proof of the acknowledgement. This is very important to us because we are
usually telling our clients that if they use the information to trade, and
the application is just for reporting, for example, they do so without our
advisement and approval and basically, they shouldn't. If we have captured
their acknowledgement, then we have at least some proof that it was seen.
In the event of a major feature update, we re-release an updated
acknowledgement and force it so the user has to accept it again. We
capture this as well, so we have some modicum of protection.

As to the usability of the document itself, that is really up to the
involvement of the Business and Technology teams working on the document
with Legal and Compliance. I have been involved in many of these meetings
and have found Legal and Compliance very much willing to make the right
statements. Oftentimes it is the lack of Business and Technology's
involvement, in asking questions and explaining exactly what the
application or site does and where the holes might be, that leads them to
provide a "form" statement. Legal and Compliance wouldn't allow anything
to be released if they had their druthers, because that is the ultimate
protection.

Jennifer Vignone
User Experience Design
jennifer.r.vignone at jpmorgan.com

28 Oct 2008 - 1:43am
Andy Polaine
2008

> If we have captured their acknowledgement, then we have at least
> some proof that it was seen.

Which, unfortunately, shows that the intent isn't for it to be useful,
but to cover the company's backside. That's why I feel it is important
for both UI/IxD and legal depts. to think about their T&Cs like any
other design problem, starting with the intention of what they hope to
achieve. Like I said, if it's just to cover the company legally, it's
irrelevant whether people read or see them or not - you might as well
have a black box "agree to whatever is in here" before you can continue.

It's a real problem that starts way outside the designers or the
company. For my part I feel a service design approach to the entire
experience is in order to really re-think the process.

Best,

Andy

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Andy Polaine

Research | Writing | Strategy
Interaction Concept Design
Education Futures

Twitter: apolaine
Skype: apolaine

http://playpen.polaine.com
http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com
http://www.omnium.net.au
http://www.antirom.com

28 Oct 2008 - 2:04am
Jeff Howard
2004

That's awesome! Also, it should have a timer. Calculate how long it
would actually take to read and understand the terms and conditions
and then prevent the user from proceeding before that time has
elapsed. 45 minutes ought to do it. ;-)

// jeff

Santiago wrote:
> 1. Place a link or button labeled "I read the Terms
> & Conditions" at the bottom of the terms... 2..leading
> to a multiple choice test on legal issues, that users
> must pass in order to continue.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34863

28 Oct 2008 - 2:33am
AJ Kock
2007

If I remember correctly, when I got my new credit card with Virgin
Money, they had a T&C I had to sign, but they also had a human
version, which I actually read!

28 Oct 2008 - 3:02am
Andy Polaine
2008

> If I remember correctly, when I got my new credit card with Virgin
> Money, they had a T&C I had to sign, but they also had a human
> version, which I actually read!

If I think of more personal services, such as getting a home loan
(anyone still get one of those these days?!) or a pension, drafting a
will, or some other kind of service involving a real person advising
you, they would take you through the key points of this and explain
them to you in plain language. Sometimes you even have to sign or
initial each page. Not that I'd want to click "Accept" for a five page
T&C, but the principle is there that someone explains the key points
to you and you can delve deeper if you like.

Given that the entire thing can have hyperlinks, it would seem
possible to make a clear set of T&Cs that are readable, but linking to
the full legal mumbo jumbo text, albeit with the probably necessary
proviso of shirking responsibility for the easy to read version. That
kind of multiple layering of information is exactly what interactive
media excel at.

Best,

Andy

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Andy Polaine

Research | Writing | Strategy
Interaction Concept Design
Education Futures

Twitter: apolaine
Skype: apolaine

http://playpen.polaine.com
http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com
http://www.omnium.net.au
http://www.antirom.com

28 Oct 2008 - 4:01am
Brian Mclaughlin
2008

Well....I am glad I brought up the topic...

However, I am still looking for samples.

@ Andy Polaine %u2013 If I remember correctly, even though Apple
brings up another window to click Agree or not to, you still do not
have to reach the bottom of the T&C for the window to open.

@ Jay Morgan %u2013 Your 3 scenarios match my first 3 sketched out
scenarios. My concern is that because this is not the norm, people
are not going to know to scroll to the bottom to see the call to
action. This leads to putting some type of instructional text
somewhere explaining the task. This of course is just adding to the
problem (adding more %u201Cnoise%u201D to the page/section).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34863

28 Oct 2008 - 4:34am
Andy Polaine
2008

> @ Andy Polaine %u2013 If I remember correctly, even though Apple
> brings up another window to click Agree or not to, you still do not
> have to reach the bottom of the T&C for the window to open.

Yes, that's right. But it does force an "Accept" or "Don't Accept"
decision before you can go any further - I find it a good balance of
the two. Forcing users to scroll to the bottom is pointless because,
as a few have pointed out, you can't prove or show or be sure that
someone has actually read the text anyway. You can only prove/ensure
the click.

Scrolling to the bottom is in some ways a worse solution because it's
uncommon (and irritating) and people might miss it and just bomb out.

Best,

Andy

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Andy Polaine

Research | Writing | Strategy
Interaction Concept Design
Education Futures

Twitter: apolaine
Skype: apolaine

http://playpen.polaine.com
http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com
http://www.omnium.net.au
http://www.antirom.com

28 Oct 2008 - 5:01am
Brian Mclaughlin
2008

I am certainly not trying to make a case that it is a good idea to
force someone to scroll to the bottom to accept the T&C. I fully
agree there are better ways to handle this. And I also like the Apple
way of doing it.

However, the company is mandating that %u201Cthe user must reach the
end of the T&C before they can accept them%u201D. They fully
understand that this does not mean that just because a person has
gotten to the end of the T&Cs that they have read any of it. They
fully understand that this is not common practice/behavior. Yet they
are insisting on this point.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34863

28 Oct 2008 - 9:43am
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Oct 27, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Santiago Bustelo wrote:

> "it is the job of every designer to blunt and, where possible,
> eliminate the lawyer's attempts to sabotage your company's
> products".

Or die trying.

28 Oct 2008 - 3:56pm
Jeff Howard
2004

Go to any Kinkos and sign into one of their self-serve computers.
Their terms and conditions make you scroll to the bottom of the
textbox before activating the buttons.

// jeff

bmclaughlin wrote:
> However, I am still looking for samples.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34863

29 Oct 2008 - 12:43am
Anonymous

Of *course* people don't read the T&Cs. They're too long and convoluted.
I sometimes think that's just how the lawyers like it. ;-)

A nice solution is:
1. A scrollable text field (or link to a T&C page/box) that you can skip
if you're so inclined. The legal responsibility for that is yours, just
as you can sign a contract without reading it if you want to, but your
agreement is still binding.

2. Bold headings through the text that summarise each major point
underneath, so at least users can know which things to read carefully.
For instance, a heading "You have 100 free uses of each image, after
which you have to pay" would cover the situation someone mentioned
earlier. Users eyes would catch the heading as they scroll and they'd
know to read this somewhat unexpected clause.

The fact that the heading is merely a heading, and not a stand alone
plain English summary, makes most lawyers feel much more comfortable.
It's a pointer to what to read, not a translation.

3. Anything unusual (and I think the pay after 100 uses situation
definitely counts) should be highlighted *outside* of the terms and
conditions box as well in the main area of the page, so that users who
always skip T&C sections have a fighting chance of seeing it.

And of course you can try getting the legal team to write English. It
can be done so that it's both legally correct and understandable (see
the Plain English movement, which has been around for over a decade.

For instance, our automotive association in Australia, NRMA, has all its
documents in plain English, including its insurance documents, and their
world did not collapse. Check this out as a typical example, in
particular the "what's covered" section, which many insurance companies
make utterly incomprehensible:
http://www.nrma.com.au/documents/policy-booklets/home-policy.pdf

This is the book many people in Australia reference, but it's currently
out of print. I'm sure it's available somewhere though.
http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Plain-English-Robert-Eagleson/dp/064406848
5/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225258245&sr=1-1

And there's also this, which is in print, but I haven't read it so can't
comments on its quality:
http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Writing-Plain-English-Publishing/dp/02262841
74/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225258245&sr=1-3

Cheers

Alinta Thornton
User Experience Lead

independent digital media
web publishing | marketing+technology services | publisher solutions
Westside, Level 2 Suite C, 83 O'Riordan Street, Alexandria NSW Australia
2015
PO Box 7160, Alexandria, NSW 2015
W www.idmco.com.au

B http://eezia.blogspot.com

30 Oct 2008 - 3:09am
Gregor Kiddie
2008

My main issue with the idea of the T&C being legally binding is the
assumption that the person who used the system is the same person who
agreed to the Terms and Conditions, or even that they agreed to the
Terms and Conditions at all!

Take the recent Flash Player click-jacking fix. If a website used
click-jacking to get someone to click "agree" on a T&C dialog they never
see, are they still bound by it?

Bigger picture again for a website, how can you actually legally prove
that someone has ever agreed to your T&Cs? Without some piece of user
identifiable information replacing the simple click action, this is
impossible.

Gk.

Gregor Kiddie
Senior Developer
INPS

Tel: 01382 564343

Registered address: The Bread Factory, 1a Broughton Street, London SW8
3QJ

Registered Number: 1788577

Registered in the UK

Visit our Internet Web site at www.inps.co.uk

The information in this internet email is confidential and is intended
solely for the addressee. Access, copying or re-use of information in it
by anyone else is not authorised. Any views or opinions presented are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
INPS or any of its affiliates. If you are not the intended recipient
please contact is.helpdesk at inps.co.uk

30 Oct 2008 - 3:33am
Gregor Kiddie
2008

As other people have given examples of games, here's one that has gone
the other way.

Warhammer Online required you to scroll to the bottom of the T&Cs and
accept them whenever logging into the game.
They changed this so the scrolling was not required due to user feedback
that it was both annoying and confusing.

Not annoying enough to remove the T&Cs completely though ;)

Gk.

Gregor Kiddie
Senior Developer
INPS

Tel: 01382 564343

Registered address: The Bread Factory, 1a Broughton Street, London SW8
3QJ

Registered Number: 1788577

Registered in the UK

Visit our Internet Web site at www.inps.co.uk

The information in this internet email is confidential and is intended
solely for the addressee. Access, copying or re-use of information in it
by anyone else is not authorised. Any views or opinions presented are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
INPS or any of its affiliates. If you are not the intended recipient
please contact is.helpdesk at inps.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
Jeff Howard
Sent: 28 October 2008 13:57
To: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist

Go to any Kinkos and sign into one of their self-serve computers.
Their terms and conditions make you scroll to the bottom of the
textbox before activating the buttons.

// jeff

bmclaughlin wrote:
> However, I am still looking for samples.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34863

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

30 Oct 2008 - 4:05am
Tim Wright
2008

On a different perspective, I always try to think of Terms and Conditions
being binding on the *website* not on the user - the user is giving us data
as long as we agree to follow our Terms and Conditions. Then the T&Cs are
things like "we won't sell your email address" and so on.

Tim

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Gregor Kiddie <gkiddie at inpses.co.uk> wrote:

> My main issue with the idea of the T&C being legally binding is the
> assumption that the person who used the system is the same person who
> agreed to the Terms and Conditions, or even that they agreed to the
> Terms and Conditions at all!
>
> Take the recent Flash Player click-jacking fix. If a website used
> click-jacking to get someone to click "agree" on a T&C dialog they never
> see, are they still bound by it?
>
> Bigger picture again for a website, how can you actually legally prove
> that someone has ever agreed to your T&Cs? Without some piece of user
> identifiable information replacing the simple click action, this is
> impossible.
>
> Gk.
>
> Gregor Kiddie
> Senior Developer
> INPS
>
> Tel: 01382 564343
>
> Registered address: The Bread Factory, 1a Broughton Street, London SW8
> 3QJ
>
> Registered Number: 1788577
>
> Registered in the UK
>
> Visit our Internet Web site at www.inps.co.uk
>
> The information in this internet email is confidential and is intended
> solely for the addressee. Access, copying or re-use of information in it
> by anyone else is not authorised. Any views or opinions presented are
> solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
> INPS or any of its affiliates. If you are not the intended recipient
> please contact is.helpdesk at inps.co.uk
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
Kei te kōrero tiki au. Kei te kōrero tiki koe. Ka kōrero tiki tāua. Kōrero
ai tiki tāua.

30 Oct 2008 - 5:39am
Brian Mclaughlin
2008

In the "for what its worth" department...the solution that has been
approved by legal is to have the T&Cs all out there (no forced
height/scrollbar) with the Agree check box at the end along with
other "signature" items to complete.

As far as comments around trying to simplify T&Cs, whether they have
value at all, who agreed vs. who uses it, what should be considered
outside of the scope of normal T&Cs, etc. ...
I don't what the atmosphere around litigation is in other countries
but here in the U.S. it is simply madness. Unless that is brought
under control we will continue to have things written in legal
terminology and have legal departments lose sleep over the difference
between someone being force to have all the text pass before them
before being allowed to accept vs. having it is a smaller box that
does not force someone to be exposed to all the text.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34863

Syndicate content Get the feed