Since all requirements came from legal there was less wiggle room as interpretation of legal requirements also had to be considered.

Met with design group that represented their various spaces across the bank - about 50 designers, which proved to be challenging. Since I was a content designer and visual designer with the credit and lending space, and familiar with working with Bills and our legal partners, I was asked to take the lead.

I gathered all the various use cases across teams and found underlying similarities to help solve for next steps and refining the requirements in first step drafts to start the Discovery process.

Having the user toggle between French and English was the first solution, however that was not considered "equally weighted". Instead, I contained the documents in their own space on the page and added a "switch" for the documents only, to go from French to English and vice versa. Legal allowed this option, however they did not want to use the word "switch", so they provided the content used.

Minimized interruption for the user by only limiting the language switch component for Quebec residents. For all French speaking users in Canada and all English speaking users outside of Quebec, they will see their documents in preferred language only.

Prevent alarming users - distinct translation accompanied with specific interactions, guide users to understand what the French content meant on their English language screen.
‍
This also supported accessibility concerns.
‍
Disclaimer content -  I utilized the Gesalt Principle of Proximity and contained the disclaimer directly with the documents instead of with the other legal disclaimers that will be on this screen. This will help with ensuring it is implemented correctly across the bank and support context for users.
‍
French translation of the disclaimer, is set to default collapse which forces the user to interact to expand it. This would help to understand it was not a priority and that it is a direct translation of the English content.
‍
Switch content to move between languages - the direct translation was included to avoid standalone French content.
‍
User switches to the French documents -  no legal disclaimer is included since the disclaimer states that the user wants to "request and agree to be bound exclusively by the English version of these documents". That would not apply if the user completed the Document Review with the French documents.
‍
Limitation – This screen is part of an application flow so avoided introducing the Profile language settings, since that would prevent them from completing their application, so deemed it out of scope.

Since the number of documents for onboarding experiences differ and will continue to grow, the management of documents between Contracts of Adhesion (CoA) and non CoA, need to require less management from the product and engineering standpoint. Therefore, I decided for all documents to be managed the same. This will be easier for the user and easier for engineering and product.

Submit Application - This supports the opening and "reading" of required CoA documents. The user is able to submit the application with the French documents or English documents. However, the application can only be submitted if the associated documents on the UI has been read.

Rather than changing the client’s overall language preference, I kept bilingual documents within their own space and introduced a dedicated control for moving betweenEnglish and French. I applied this only where the regulatory requirement was relevant, minimizing disruption elsewhere.

I positioned legal guidance directly within the document component, while using progressive disclosure for translated content to reduce visual noise and help clientsunderstand why French content appeared within an English experience.

I brought Contracts of Adhesion (CoA) and other document types into a consistent interaction model, reducing complexity while supporting different regulatoryrequirements, onboarding journeys and document volumes.