Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
My main issue with the idea of the TC 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 TC 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 TCs? 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 TCs 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 TCs 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Howard Sent: 28 October 2008 13:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 TCs 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My main issue with the idea of the TC 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 TC 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 TCs? 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
In the for what its worth department...the solution that has been approved by legal is to have the TCs 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 TCs, whether they have value at all, who agreed vs. who uses it, what should be considered outside of the scope of normal TCs, 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 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 TCs 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 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
If I remember correctly, when I got my new credit card with Virgin Money, they had a TC I had to sign, but they also had a human version, which I actually read! Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
If I remember correctly, when I got my new credit card with Virgin Money, they had a TC 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 TC, 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 TCs 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 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
WellI 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 TC 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 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
@ 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 TC 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 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 TC. 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 TC 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 TCs 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 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
Of *course* people don't read the TCs. 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 TC 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 TC 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=UTF8s=booksqid=1225258245sr=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=UTF8s=booksqid=1225258245sr=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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chauncey Wilson Sent: Tuesday, 28 October 2008 4:23 AM To: Eva Kaniasty Cc: IxDA Discuss Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist 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 TCs, so is it possible that we are making assumptions without digging in to the details. Perhaps there are many good TC'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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
[IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
I am looking for sample of Terms and Conditions acceptance with a bit of a twist. Generally when I have set up TC 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 TC 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 TC 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 TC 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
The online game - Eve Online eve-online.com - implements this for their TC 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am looking for sample of Terms and Conditions acceptance with a bit of a twist. Generally when I have set up TC 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 TC 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 TC 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 TC 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Twitter: docbaty Blog: http://docholdsfourth.blogspot.com Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
It's such an insane way of thinking about TCs 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's such an insane way of thinking about TCs 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The online game - Eve Online eve-online.com - implements this for their TC 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am looking for sample of Terms and Conditions acceptance with a bit of a twist. Generally when I have set up TC 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 TC 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 TC 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 TC 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Twitter: docbaty Blog: http://docholdsfourth.blogspot.com Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
Slightly away from the original topic, Chauncey I think you raise a great point... I wonder if the lawyers who insist TCs 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Slightly away from the original topic, Chauncey I think you raise a great point... I wonder if the lawyers who insist TCs 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 TCs) :-) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 TC 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, October 27, 2008 4:46 am Subject: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am looking for sample of Terms and Conditions acceptance with a bit of a twist. Generally when I have set up TC 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 TC 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 TC 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 TC 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mary-margaret.com Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
Commission Junction is using that kind of TC form in the application process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 TCs, so is it possible that we are making assumptions without digging in to the details. Perhaps there are many good TC'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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
There is a way to ensure users actually read the TC: 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 TC, 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 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 TCs, so is it possible that we are making assumptions without digging in to the details. Perhaps there are many good TC'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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Katie Albers [EMAIL PROTECTED]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 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
Original question about 'how to force/ensure TC perusal prior to agreement':Years ago (early 2000's) I was branded by this experience where a TC dialogue box broke my expectations: After several attempts to click through, I figured out i *had to* scroll all the way through the TC 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for sample of Terms and Conditions acceptance with a bit of a twist. Generally when I have set up TC 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 TC 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 TC 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 TC 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help -- Jay A. Morgan Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andy Polaine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/27/2008 09:19 AM To IxDA List [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc Subject Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist It's such an insane way of thinking about TCs 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 ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help Generally, this communication is for informational purposes only and it is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument or as an official confirmation of any transaction. In the event you are receiving the offering materials attached below related to your interest in hedge funds or private equity, this communication may be intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of such fund(s). All market prices, data and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein do not necessarily reflect those of JPMorgan Chase Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates. This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by JPMorgan Chase Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact
