18

What's the best way to make a user read terms and conditions before continuing a form?

Structure of Form:
Label1 [Textbox]
Label2 [Textbox]
Terms and Conditions [Textarea]
Checkbox ["I agree to the terms and conditions."]
Submit Button

The form has a requirement of checking off the checkbox "I agree to terms and conditions" before submitting the form. The goal is for the user to scroll to the bottom of Terms and Conditions text area before allowing them to check off "I agree to terms and conditions".

One option is to disable the checkbox until the user scrolls to the bottom of the Terms and Conditions textarea... but how what is the best way to tell the user they have to scroll in order to activate the checkbox?

Are there better options?

JohnGB
  • 68,376
  • 26
  • 180
  • 294
Margaret
  • 183
  • 1
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
    make it short and simple .. :) – Mortalus Mar 06 '13 at 20:06
  • 3
    That user scrolled all the way down does not mean he read it. :) The only real way to make them read it is (1) Add a quiz. (2) Make the terms real short. If then need to scroll you've probably lost the "get-em-to-read" battle already. You'll just satisfy yourself that they did scroll down. – curious_cat Mar 11 '13 at 11:06
  • Google managed it a couple times when they simplified their terms and condition to big font one page summary and graphics heavy to what they believe is important -- this is when they have massive changes and want user to agree again -- then here's a link at the end "read the full T&C). I thought it's good UX, make it easy to read click "agree". Too bad not more people do it and I'm not even sure Google is doing it anymore. :( – CleverNode Jan 27 '16 at 15:13

4 Answers4

20

There is no reason to force a user to read the terms and conditions first. It is not a legal requirement and it doesn't improve the UX.

Don't do it.

Legally they simply have to agree to the terms and conditions, and if they choose not to read them, then that is their problem.

UX wise, what part of the experience are you trying to improve by doing this? Sure, make the terms and conditions more readable, and make them easy to find. But don't force someone to do something that has no benefit for them.

On the off chance that this has been handed down from some manager on high, and you have no say in the matter (stranger things have happened), I would follow the example set by Windows 98 (I never thought I would ever say that!).

  1. Make sure that it is clear to a user that they have to read to the bottom of the terms and conditions. Something like "You need to read to the bottom of these terms and conditions before you can continue".

  2. Make the "I agree" button active only when they have read to the bottom of the terms and conditions.

JohnGB
  • 68,376
  • 26
  • 180
  • 294
  • While this is true that it does not improve UX, for some companies it may be important, e.g. due to legal requirements or their public picture. Apple AppStore is a great example here - whenever T&C change, user needs to go through the whole text (several pages, if memory serves) just to click "Agree" at the end. I believe there is more legal stuff here, but they also say by this "Look, we do care that our customers know the rules, so we play fair." Which doesn't change the fact that most people just scroll through it without reading. Ergo: it's not making them read, just an excuse. – Dominik Oslizlo Mar 06 '13 at 22:19
  • @DominikOslizlo I just had Apple change their T&C and had to agree tonight. I did not have to read to the end, I just had to accept them. Reading to the end is not a legal requirement for any document, as long as you had the option to read to the end. – JohnGB Mar 06 '13 at 22:45
  • That's what I'm saying, it's not actually "making users read", it's rather making sure that it looks like everything was done for the users to read it. T&C could be hidden behind a link to a separate view, so that some (perhaps many) users would not even go to this view. Yet, user needs to at least scroll through it to click "I agree" at the end. – Dominik Oslizlo Mar 06 '13 at 22:53
  • @DominikOslizlo I did not have to scroll through anything with Apples T&C because scrolling to the end is not a legal requirement. – JohnGB Mar 06 '13 at 22:59
  • This is strange... Maybe it's different in different countries? I believe in my case there was a need of scrolling through (or even going through some screens) to get to the "Agree" button. – Dominik Oslizlo Mar 06 '13 at 23:05
  • Ok, I think I've found it. In Mac AppStore you don't need to scroll through, indeed: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tuaw.com/media/2011/01/06-mac-app-store-t-and-c.png, while in AppStore for iOS user first gets nagged by a message saying "You need to read and agree to the new T&C": http://theiphonetoday.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/photo6.jpg?w=600 after which he goes to a screen with T&C. In this screen he needs to get to the very end to agree, as there is no button at the top to do it: http://theiphonetoday.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/photo7.jpg?w=600 – Dominik Oslizlo Mar 06 '13 at 23:09
  • 1
    What is legally required and what is not differs wildly between countries. For instance, AFAIK, any license that you did not have the opportunity to read before buying the product is void in the Netherlands. That means that all shrinkwrap-type licences and also terms and conditions like proposed here are quite useless there. – André Mar 07 '13 at 08:18
  • @André Even in the Netherlands, you don't have to read it first. You just have to have had the opportunity to read it, and for that you don't have to have scrolled to the end. The same applies in NL when signing a document at a notary for that matter. – JohnGB Mar 07 '13 at 10:47
  • 2
    @JohnGB That's not the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make, is that the whole thing itself is pointless there. You are only presented the terms when you have already purchased the product. That AFAIK is void, and so, presenting those terms is useless. – André Mar 07 '13 at 11:04
  • "I would follow the example set by Windows 98 (I never thought I would ever say that!)" hahaha – Adriano Sep 24 '14 at 09:02
  • Maybe a text above the "next" button saying something like "By clicking on Next I agree that I have read the terms & conditions above." ? see http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/53484/accepting-multiple-terms-and-conditions-at-once – Adriano Sep 24 '14 at 09:04
7

I love this question! Here are some points you could consider:

1. Reading on a screen is hard and T&C's are often looong

That's the reason why people still prefer to print longer text and not read them on screens.

Shorter text is more likely to be read. Ideally users get a summary of the most important points and are given the option to read the full text if they want to.

Good article: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-little-do-users-read/

2. T&C are often written in legal jargon

Many users might not fully understand legal jargon. “Why would I read something that I don't (fully) understand?”

Using plain language/English might increase the number of people reading the T&C's.

TED talk on legal jargon: http://www.ted.com/talks/alan_siegel_let_s_simplify_legal_jargon.html


Some good examples and ressorces:


**500px T&C with summary of the paragraph on the side:**

500px T&C with summary of the paragraph on the side


**Google T&C in plain English:**

Google T&C in plain English

Related ux.stackexchange question: How to design usable web site terms & conditions?

greenforest
  • 8,786
  • 5
  • 37
  • 55
  • another not-so-horrible example is dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/privacy, taken from http://www.digitaltrends.com/topic/terms-and-conditions/ – Dvir Adler Mar 11 '13 at 09:01
4

Have the user agree separately to each term and condition you specifically want them to be aware of:

Label1 [Textbox]
Label2 [Textbox]
Terms and Conditions [Textarea]
[] I will not upload any copyrighted material to this service
[] I promise to be respectful to other users
[] I am aware that all my usage data will be sold to the Russian mafia
[Submit]

By having the user interact with your terms and conditions you force them to think about what they are agreeing to.

Note that in many cases the terms&conditions are the usual legalese you find on every website, and you can assume that most users are aware of it. So forcing them to read it wastes their time and reduces their click-through rate. You should only call special attentions to those terms and conditions which are uncommon and/or very frequently violated.

Philipp
  • 1,225
  • 9
  • 10
  • 2
    I love this idea. It forces the user to at least read a highlights / table of contents and might actually increase trust by showing that the legalese is mostly about reasonable thingsthat they can understand. – octern Jan 28 '16 at 00:14
  • What is meant by Label1 and Label2 in your example? – zgall1 Mar 07 '17 at 18:24
  • @zgall1 The usual personal information you are expected to leave when you register on some website – Philipp Mar 07 '17 at 18:29
2

  • Make the Terms and Conditions [Textarea] scrollable and give it at least 200x200 pixels. Explanation: No need to go to other screen.

  • Make the Submit Button disabled until the user scroll down the terms. Explanation: You force him to scroll, so he will see the text. Also you can force him to scroll slow.

  • Make sure you split the terms to small paragraphs. Explanation: It's people lost interest if they see one block of text.

André
  • 6,574
  • 21
  • 39
user80042
  • 681
  • 1
  • 6
  • 15
  • While this is a good answer as such, you could add some explanations why you think this is a good way to handle it like that. You can just edit those into your answer, if you feel like adding some. – kontur Mar 11 '13 at 07:56
  • Is 200x200 meant to be big or small? It sounds very narrow to me... – AlexC Mar 14 '13 at 10:21
  • @AlexC thank I updated my answer to: 200x200 or more pixels. 200x200px is because it good for mobile. – user80042 Mar 14 '13 at 10:45
  • That reminds me of a program I installed a few days before (don’t remember what exactly it was) where the whole EULA was within a ~300x50px box, i.e. smaller than the comment box here! Obviously you could never read it in there, so I just ignored its existence… – poke Mar 14 '13 at 12:31