Comment by lionkor

IANAL, but this depends on the jurisdiction. In some places (e.g. Ontario, Canada), e-signatures are fine; often this is because the law explicitly says they have the same effect as a "wet" signature. In this case, "looking real" doesn't enter into it.

In others (e.g. Denmark), you don't even need to sign - merely stating your intent to accept a contract, and having a clear record of that intention, is enough. In this case, again, "looking real" is a non-issue; you can even send an email in some cases.

In yet others, you will definitely be asked for a "wet" signature, and a digital signature is not considered legally acceptable. Here looking real could matter; if your signature is obviously non-physical, it may be refused.

This also varies by situation. In some places, banks want to see a wet signature, _and_ will compare it with an existing wet signature they have on file. In this case, it very much matters how real it looks, where "real" means "matches this other real signature". (Does this make sense? Arguably no, but that's the way it currently is.)

I had to look it up when doing deals with someone in Japan, and Wikipedia (iirc) told me that specifically in Japan just scribbling over the pdf via the touchpad is not a legal thing—you have to do the paper dance. Judging from the comments here, France also doesn't encourage all-digital laziness.

And that raises the question for those of us that had to sign a bunch of documents when things were locked down: What purpose does the signature serve? It was a constant hassle that wasted a bunch of my time, and it ultimately was not a signature.

You are right, that it shouldn't make a difference technically.

I think the goal is to minimize the risk of someone rejecting your document because it looks photoshopped.