Assignment III: IBL Legal Design Hackathon
https://www.signify.com/global/legal/digital-terms/export-control-sanctions
Export control & sanctions
Poster:
What’s wrong (with examples)
The document is legally precise, but completely user-unfriendly.
This section of the Signify legal website aims to help customers comply with export
control and sanctions rules.
However, the current version is too complex, too abstract, and too hard to act on.
Here’s what’s broken:
Overly Legalistic and Complex Language
The text uses dense legal phrasing that only a lawyer would fully understand.
For example: “Customer must not export, re-export, sell, supply, transfer or otherwise
made available, directly or indirectly, those Products to or for use in the Russian
Federation and/or Belarus, unless expressly authorized by a valid exemption or
derogation granted by the competent authority in the European Union.”
Problems:
a. One sentence, 56 words long.
b. Uses technical and unfamiliar terms: “re-export,” “derogation,” “competent
authority.”
c. Passive, impersonal style: readers can’t tell what action is required of them.
d. Hard to translate or interpret for non-native speakers.
No Clear Structure or Visual Hierarchy
The text appears as one long block of prose, no headlines, no bullet points, no steps.
Example:
“Customer shall not sell, supply, export, re-export, transfer, or otherwise make
available any Products or Services, directly or indirectly, to any Embargoed Country or
Territory. Customer must review the most recent applicable sanctions list prior to each
transaction…”
Problems:
a. No bolded keywords or visual separation.
b. Readers can’t quickly find what they can or cannot do.
c. Lacks a summary or “Quick Guide.”
d. Feels intimidating and bureaucratic.
Users are likely to skip reading it entirely.
Undefined and Technical Terms
The text assumes the reader already knows specialist terms, which most users (like
distributors or sales staff) don’t.
Examples:
- “Embargoed Country or Territory” — What counts?
- “End- use verification” — How do I verify end use?
- “Internal compliance measures” — What kind? How detailed?
Problem:
Without simple explanations or examples, the policy creates uncertainty instead of
guidance.
Users can’t confidently comply because they don’t know what these terms mean in
practice.
https://www.signify.com/global/legal/digital-terms/export-control-sanctions
Export control & sanctions
Poster:
What’s wrong (with examples)
The document is legally precise, but completely user-unfriendly.
This section of the Signify legal website aims to help customers comply with export
control and sanctions rules.
However, the current version is too complex, too abstract, and too hard to act on.
Here’s what’s broken:
Overly Legalistic and Complex Language
The text uses dense legal phrasing that only a lawyer would fully understand.
For example: “Customer must not export, re-export, sell, supply, transfer or otherwise
made available, directly or indirectly, those Products to or for use in the Russian
Federation and/or Belarus, unless expressly authorized by a valid exemption or
derogation granted by the competent authority in the European Union.”
Problems:
a. One sentence, 56 words long.
b. Uses technical and unfamiliar terms: “re-export,” “derogation,” “competent
authority.”
c. Passive, impersonal style: readers can’t tell what action is required of them.
d. Hard to translate or interpret for non-native speakers.
No Clear Structure or Visual Hierarchy
The text appears as one long block of prose, no headlines, no bullet points, no steps.
Example:
“Customer shall not sell, supply, export, re-export, transfer, or otherwise make
available any Products or Services, directly or indirectly, to any Embargoed Country or
Territory. Customer must review the most recent applicable sanctions list prior to each
transaction…”
Problems:
a. No bolded keywords or visual separation.
b. Readers can’t quickly find what they can or cannot do.
c. Lacks a summary or “Quick Guide.”
d. Feels intimidating and bureaucratic.
Users are likely to skip reading it entirely.
Undefined and Technical Terms
The text assumes the reader already knows specialist terms, which most users (like
distributors or sales staff) don’t.
Examples:
- “Embargoed Country or Territory” — What counts?
- “End- use verification” — How do I verify end use?
- “Internal compliance measures” — What kind? How detailed?
Problem:
Without simple explanations or examples, the policy creates uncertainty instead of
guidance.
Users can’t confidently comply because they don’t know what these terms mean in
practice.
