Came to say this. Courts have been dealing with intent vs proofs for a long time and the intent is central. Some jurisdictions used (maybe still do) stipulate real hand on real pen in real ink, sometimes even colour of ink. But at large, your intent to declare something by signing even with an "X" is taken as such.
Obviously as a computer scientist I want a render of my sig as an image/logo to underpin "the SHA512 checksum of the input byte stream under these canonicalisation rules <here> applied to this use of my X.509 private key" but in fact, I just have a clip of my signature as a PNG which Apple's preview tool pastes as an image into PDF documents and I send them on, and its fine.
Docusign is trash-theatre. Its secure because they say so. It may marginally add some value in some jurisdictions, I don't know.
Remember in Scotland, verbal contracts are binding with no need to witness. Bizarre! A family member nearly sold the flat under-value except the buyer was kind about it and accepted it was unintentional language not a verbal acceptance of offer.
> Docusign is trash-theatre. Its secure because they say so.
Docusign's system is designed very specifically around the legal requirements of the US federal E-Sign Act, which guarantee, for transactions in interstate or foreign commerce, that even if there is a statute, regulation, etc., on its face requiring a written agreement, the electronic signature will be treated as satisfactory.
It did not become popular because it was viewed as particularly secure, it became popular because it was point-by-point checklist following the E-Sign requirements, and there are lots of entities who wanted to legal guarantees that come with complying with E-Sign.
> Remember in Scotland, verbal contracts are binding with no need to witness. Bizarre!
For most matters (there are some matters that legally--either by common law or statute--require a written contract) verbal contracts are binding without a need to witness in most common law jurisdictions (including the US); written and signed contracts are important even then because they provide evidence of both the content and the fact of the agreement, even when they are not required for a binding agreement to exist. Proving the existence and terms of an unwritten, unwitnessed contract when you want to take action over a breach by your counterparty can be tricky.
> Remember in Scotland, verbal contracts are binding with no need to witness.
The same in the U.S., it's just a matter of proof.