Progress Over Perfection: SES vs QES Digital Signatures
A perfect process doesn’t mean people will use it
In our bid to build seamless customer journeys, we often forget that simplicity beats sophistication every time.
Whether it’s buying a product online or signing a digital document, users want things to work - quickly and intuitively. Just look at the rise in digital expectations across industries.
The challenge is finding the right balance between robust systems and user-friendly design.
When it comes to electronic signatures, the battle between SES (Simple Electronic Signatures), AES (Advanced Electronic Signatures) and QES (Qualified Electronic Signatures) is a clear example of how consumer simplicity potentially comes before legal robustness.
I've been reading up on it recently and thought it might be worth sharing my thoughts.
Understanding SES vs QES
Same Goal, Different Systems
Electronic signatures exploded in popularity during the pandemic, replacing manual paperwork with digital consent.
But not all signatures are created equal.
The eIDAS regulation lays out the differences between signature types, and for most businesses, the choice comes down to SES or QES.
Here’s the core difference:
SES (Simple Electronic Signature) and AES (Advanced Electronic Signatures) place the burden of proof on the organisation.
In a legal dispute, the business must demonstrate that the customer genuinely agreed to the document.
This is what most people have experienced when using tools like DocuSign or Adobe Sign - typing your name, drawing a signature, or clicking “I agree.”
It’s quick and user-friendly, but easier to challenge in court.
QES (Qualified Electronic Signature) flips the burden of proof.
The consumer must prove they didn’t sign, because the system, provided by a qualified supplier, uses a much more secure process - including identity verification and digital certificates issued by a trusted provider.
To use QES, signers typically need to go through steps like scanning a passport, using a national digital ID, or completing a face verification.
It’s far more robust legally, but adds friction for both businesses and users.
Essentially, QES offers stronger legal weight. But that assurance doesn’t necessarily come cheap - or easy.
It can also introduce a lot of additional complexity that most users aren’t prepared to tolerate.
The Challenge of Complexity
Why Users Abandon Friction-Heavy Flows
QES is ideal for high-value transactions where absolute certainty is important. Think property deals, legal contracts, or cross-border agreements.
These scenarios justify the steps: downloading an app, verifying ID, using multi-factor authentication. But for most everyday interactions, these hoops may be deemed unnecessary - and counterproductive.
Behavioural science explains why. People follow the path of least resistance. Every extra action required in a digital process increases abandonment rates.
You don’t have to look far - just think of how often you’ve given up on a form because it was too long or confusing.
Security is essential. But so is usability.
When these two values clash, businesses must make smart compromises that don’t lose the customer in the process.
Why SES Works for Everyday Agreements
Practical, Predictable, Human
For standard agreements - onboarding documents, policy acceptances, service consent - SES has proliferated and is deemed to ‘get the job done’.
It removes unnecessary barriers, works across devices, and integrates cleanly with existing systems.
These are the benefits executives appreciate in the boardroom:
It’s not just about speed. SES can create a more inclusive digital experience.
No need for tech-savviness, app downloads, or jumping between screens.
It's a solution that respects the user’s time and encourages action.
Designing for Real Human Behaviour
Why Intuitive Wins Over Infallible
People are not unreasonable. They value security. But they also value their time, energy, and effort.
The systems that thrive align with this reality instead of fighting it.
This is why, for all its legal strength, QES usage remains limited, often demoted to ‘edge cases’.
SES, on the other hand, has supported the streamlining of workflows and customer trust at scale.
Forrester’s State of Trust reporting highlights that customers expect both security and simplicity when interacting online. They don’t want to compromise one for the other.
The pressure is on businesses to find and maintain this balance.
The Hidden Cost of Overengineering
Deploying QES across every customer interaction may seem like a safeguard, but it’s often self-defeating.
Lost conversions, frustrated users, abandoned forms - these are real costs, eroding trust and revenue.
According to BCG’s work on complexity in business, overly complex systems reduce agility and weigh down performance. They don’t serve customer needs - they serve process perfectionism.
The result? A polished system that few want to use.
Find the Right Fit, Not the Shiniest Tool
Tailored Security, Thoughtful Design
QES absolutely has its place. When higher security is a non-negotiable, it's the right choice.
But for most customer-facing workflows, SES may strike the better balance.
It’s legally fit for purpose and aligns with consumer expectations of speed, simplicity, and trust.
That’s the same philosophy driving innovation in secure communication.
For example, features like "read without registration" make it easy for people to access secure emails without creating yet another account.
We still use encryption and authentication behind the scenes - it’s secure, just without the visible complexity that puts people off.
The key is not to chase digital perfection, but to choose the right level of security for the job, and build with the customer in mind from the start.
Progress Is Simpler Than You Think
Most people aren’t looking for perfect systems.
They’re looking for systems that work. Trusted, fast, and easy.
SES is a great example of a tool that meets this demand head-on, giving businesses the tools to move forward without slowing people down.
Because progress doesn’t come from pushing for perfection.
It comes from designing with human behaviour in mind.