Dots in textfields in protected PDF form with signature fields

[Elke231137313qmk]

I have a PDF template that is pre-filled from a database using iText.

Is is password protected, but it remains fillable.

Since I inserted signature fields, Acrobat shows dots (like in a password field) in the text fields. Clicking shows the text, when changing something the text remains visible in this field.

I thnik this is some feature to help the signing person not to forget any field, but in my context this is disturbing. Is there any preference in Acrobat I may change?

Thank you in advance, Elke

[MikelKlink]

Please share an example PDF, both before and after inserting signature fields.

(This sounds a bit like a font issue.)

[Elke231137313qmk]

Dear MikelKlink

Thank you for your fast response.

Meanwhile I see a bit better what happens:

as soon as  Signature fields are in the pdf Acrobat marks automatically all fields, which leads to the dotted representation.

One can go to Bearbeiten>Formularoptionen and remove the tick at "Vorhandene Felder markieren", then the text appears.

This seems to be saved as Preference in Acrobat (not in the pdf ...) so that following PDFs with signature fields show the text.

In case the document does not contain signature fields, the text is readable.

My Template is made in Open Office (as here, in opposite to MS Word, the names of the  text fields can be defined in the template), and the fonts are embedded. Also, the option in Acrobat for the use of local fonts makes no difference for this issue.

The template is filled using Itext and then gets password protection, fields remain fillable but text canno be edited (so that user cannot insert signature field. My client would like to have protected text and at the same time give the choice to the signing people to sign electronically. We could have a solution with the signature fields and use skribble, bot the dots are very disturbing and the option to show the text is not at all intuitive.

I upload here both versions of a sample template (I changd the text in the OO doc): one with the same pdf template without signature fields, one with signature fields added in Acrobat (as this is not provided in OO).

I guess that this is a design issue in Acrobat which cannot be solved, but perhaps I am wrong and you have some idea about what I missed.

Thank you very much in advance, best, Elke

[MikelKlink · Accepted solution]

If I understand you correctly, you start with without_signature_fields.pdf, use Adobe Acrobat to add signature fields, and get with_signature_fields.pdf as result.

In that case Adobe Acrobat as side effect does some changes in the pre-fabricated appearances of the existing text fields, probably meant for optimization, not changing the visual outcome. These changes aren't wrong per se, and other PDF viewers I have quickly available (Foxit, Chrome) still correctly display the text contents.

Apparently, though, Adobe Acrobat outsmarted itself with these changes, probably because those changes make the pre-fabricated appearances not match the default appearance template string anymore, probably because of some other reason. Whatever the reason, Adobe Acrobat does not use the (changed) appearance from within the document to display the text fields but instead something else (probably mangling the default appearance template and the not matching appearance somehow) which fails.

One possible work-around: You say you already use iText to fill the PDF. You could use iText to also create the signature fields at the same time. There is no reason to assume that iText would have the same side effect on text field appearances.

(And iText can also do the encryption...)

[Elke231137313qmk]

Dear MikelKlink

I start with an open Office document which I export to PDF, without encryption.

-> open in Acrobat and insert the signature fields.

-> upload to server with web application

-> filled in via IText, encrypted and downloaded

The dots (one per word) are not shown in Browser or Skribble, only in Acrobat when "Bearbeiten>Vorhandene Felder Markieren" is ticked, which will confuse my users.

I never thought that about putting signature fields in iText, but for sure I will try and tell you.

Thank you very much for your explanation and advice!

best, Elke

[Elke231137313qmk]

Dear MikelKlink

you were right: creating the signature fields in IText does avoids the problem.

Nevertheless it is problematic that opening the template in Acrobat, doing nothing, being asked for saving the changes one has not done, and then having the points instead of the words, is not very intuitive ...

So if you can recommend me a text editor which cooperates better with Acrobat than OO (MS Word doesnt as it does not allow to create named fields), I would be very happy.

Thank you, best Elke

[MikelKlink]

So if you can recommend me a text editor which cooperates better with Acrobat than OO (MS Word doesnt as it does not allow to create named fields), I would be very happy.

Unfortunately I cannot. On the one hand that is no use case I've had to explore yet, so I've no idea what software to recommend. On the other hand the issue here is the questionable Acrobat behavior which might change one way or the other, for better or for worse. Thus, already tomorrow the situation may change and Acrobat may suddenly handle OO documents correctly but documents by other creaters not correctly anymore.

[Elke231137313qmk]

Thank you once more!

Other question: which preference is it that causes the look of text fields one dot per word? can I change it in Acrobat or in Itext?

Best, Elke

[MikelKlink]

Well, I have no recipe up my sleeve.

This looks like some edge case, though. Minor changes should help.

You could for example try postprocessing the file using iText and remove all text field appearances before signing.

Ah, one funny thing. I just experimented and patched the file a bit. By making the font identifier F1 in the default resources also reference the same font as the identifier F4 there, the form with signature fields suddenly looks ok in Adobe Reader again!

And this is really weird because F1 from the default resources should not be used anywhere! The existing appearances have their own resources in which their own F1 is defined, and none of the default appearances of all the form fields uses F1.

Really, really weird...

[Elke231137313qmk]

oh yes you are right, it is weird.

Meanwhile I have a working solution, no need to open the template in Acrobat, putting in the signature fields programmatically.

It was your advice which gave me this idea, so thank you once more very much for all your support.

Best, Elke