Why you should never present more than one mockup to a client
I often hear designers talk about how they need to do 2 or 3 mockups for a project so the client can pick their favourite.
Back when I was starting out as a web designer, I undertook some work for a design firm. I too remember at the time being asked to come up with 2 or 3 mockups for each project that went my way, then the sales guy would show them to the client and the client would pick their favourite.
Never supply a client with more than one option
You should have final decision based on your expertise. If you show a client two mockups and one has navigation down the left and one along the top and ask “which is your favourite?” you’re degrading your expertise. You should know what the best option is and be able to back up your design decisions.
Choice paralysis
There’s a good story in Yes! 50 secrets from the science of persuasion about jars of jam for sale in a supermarket. Give the customer too many options, they’ll get confused and walk away. Narrow the options and they’re more likely to buy it.
Same goes with design. Presenting too many options over complicates things and the customer thinks about it too much.
They’ll also pick the option you didn’t want them to pick. Trust me, it’ll happen.
More work for you
Why produce more work for yourself? If you’re spending a number of days researching, wireframing and mocking up for one design, why would you want to do that all over again? Put all your effort and attention into one design, the one that you believe, as a professional, works best for your client.
If you split your workload in two, the outcome is going to be two half-assed efforts, rather than one full-ass.
Client isn’t getting the best
If you have to come up with more than one design it undoubtedly means that your first design isn’t the best, or your second design isn’t the best. If they were the best, there would be no need for another design.
One mockup allows you to focus all your expertise and attention to what you feel is the best solution for your client.
But what if my client doesn’t like it?
You can’t always get it right first time but you can take on board their feedback and iterate.
Make sure you encourage good feedback. Good feedback includes a good reason as to why they don’t think something will work.
e.g. “I don’t like blue” is not good feedback. “I don’t think the blue works because it’s very corporate and we want to show our customers we’re fun and creative” is a lot better as now you know the reason behind their thinking so you can work with this, plus they’re keeping their users and target market in mind instead of letting personal preferences get in the way.
You can then go and make the necessary amendments to satisfy each of the feedback points.
What do you think?
Some designers can’t help it and are told to produce 2, 3 or 4 mockups. Some maybe prefer to do it this way.
What’s your approach? Do you present more than one mockup? Is it your choice or are you made to?
Related articles
118 Appreciated Comments
Have a comment? Tweet @leemunroe and I'll be glad to respond.
On the , @motazzz said:
3rd one here! (hands up)
On the , Caroline said:
What rubbish!
It’s never that simple, and why should there just be one solution?
If I was the client, spending thousands on a website, and i was given one option – i would walk away. I would want a choice?? Agreed, not hundreds of options, but a choice nevertheless.
On the , Cristian Pascu said:
Very well said. Expertize and the backing arguments behind a design decision is the key here.
I was once put in front of a wireframe for my website new version, and without being given any explanations I had to say what I think. Of course I instantaneously got filled with doubts about every element on the page: “Will this actually work?”, “Does this Buy button really belong there?” How was I supposed to tell?
I said to the designer I’ll think about it and I left. :-) Initially I thought I wanted options. But actually I needed strong arguments to show me that guy’s authority on the matter. That simple. :-)
Again, nice reading!
On the , Phil said:
Some excellent points raised here. You can pretty much guarantee if you give the client multiple options they will say ‘I like this bit of this one, and that bit of that one’ and ask if you can “merge” the designs, a lot of the time that’s just because the client will feel like they need to have a creative input, but giving the process a clear direction will save a lot of headaches, not to mention all the extra time you will have to focus your efforts on one design. Great article!
On the , Steve D said:
I can see this as a valid argument for some projects Lee, but I can’t say I agree in the vast majority of cases. For example, in many instances of work I’ve done, I can think of 2 directions a project could take. Presenting too many options is problematic I agree, but it is valid and acceptable to present 2 totally different ideas to a client. I think the whole “expert” bumf creates an aloof type of designer too. OK we know our stuff but equally, the client knows their business and we should be trying to learn as much as we can about them. If they decide our colour palette is wrong and they can back it up, chances are they will be roughly on the money. A perfect example is (and we’ve all done it) we’ve put a design out that we personally don’t like, but understand it is the correct design for the client. Of course once in a while you come across the nightmare client, and perhaps then it is better to restrict certain aspects of the process in order to do the job well for them.
It’s not choice paralysis to think about 2 options properly at all, in fact it’s healthy and gets you thinking about multiple directions for every project you do. Having said all of that, of course if you only have the one strong mockup, then go right ahead with it and lose the others.
On the , Mark McCorkell said:
Once again, Monsieur Monroe, we are of similar thinking on this matter. I agree. :-)
And all of the times I gave “options” to a client they made a mess of their own website. Really quite soul destroying stuff.
Whilst it is good to get constructive feedback from the client to better the design, often it’s not the right type of feedback. The fact remains that a group of suits sitting around a table will try and call the shots based on their own ego’s and opinions – that is what happened with this website I am referring to.
I’ve developed a lot over the past few years and now I wouldn’t entertain giving “options” when I know one design does meet the clients needs.
P.S. I can see you loved David Airey’s “Logo Design Love” book as much as myself. It was bunged with wisdom and advice on matters like this one. :-)
On the , Steven Hylands said:
@Caroline I think the point Lee is making is that the client usually doesn’t know what the best solution is and therefore should trust the designer they hire to steer them in the right direction.
On the , Lee said:
Thanks for your comments.
It’s worth following up by saying you should be clear about your process in your agreement or proposal. Outline the stages involved in your design process and ensure they’re not expected to come back with several options.
Also, during your initial research stage, you should get a good feel for what type of websites your client likes and dislikes. This is the perfect way to cut out multiple mockups. Ask them what sites they like and what sites they don’t like and the reason behind these.
@Caroline: It’s hard to say and of course all clients are different but if you’re spending thousands on a website isn’t it better that you’re making life easier for them by coming up with the best solution instead of making them decide between multiple solutions?
@Steve D: It’s true that sometimes it doesn’t work, but what I like about this is you can take away their feedback based on the first mockup, then tweak it to suit their needs. It might take a couple of revisions but better that than coming up with something completely different. Doesn’t this save both parties time in the long run?
On the , Clark Caughey said:
I totally agree with you Lee. The most important factors to a design are the brief and wire framing/site mapping the content. If these are done correctly then the rest is merely semantics and personal preference. Any designer worth their salt should be able to make an informed decision on the design which can be tweeked after presenting the mock up to the client.
Presenting a number of mockups is like cooking dinner from food scraps… you will get something that is presentable but it won’t be up to Michelin Star standards!
On the , Jason said:
Partial agreement between Steve D and the article on this topic…
You are the designer, your expertise is in use to come up with the best solution for the client. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with second variation (the same layout, but different styling), but a second design just shows that you’re unsure about what’s been asked for.
And Caroline…
Your portfolio shows 10 sites, so did you do 3-4 mock-ups of each one?
^ See above…plus: it’s about quality, not quantity. Yes, what you’ve supplied is, in respects just one design…but behind that is the time spent mulling over the client’s requirements and all sorts of finicky design stuff (in respects to positioning, colour and type to name a few) that happen to make it. It has much more substance than just a single image, it’s the product of hours of thought, sketching and doing.
On the , David McDonald said:
On. The. Money.
Well said ;-)
On the , David Henderson said:
I agree Lee, always good to put all your best ideas into one design. When I first started I would provide 3 designs, but this created more hassle and work… and of course the client would always pice the wrong one!
On the , Adam Reece said:
I’ve seen it happen where a client has been given a choice of 2-3 designs, and that client ended up choosing different pieces of each design and turning it into one giant mess. In the end it was a design that had no “why” behind it.
Also, I think if you listened to the clients needs effectively, you don’t need more than one design. You should be able to accomplish the task at hand with one design. And I think revisions to that one design should be expected. It’s apart of the job.
On the , Adam Cartlidge said:
I agree dude, focus on one concept, maybe throw in a few minor variations if you please.
@Caroline: What Rubbish! ;) Ah hahaha. Surely Caroline, as a designer you should be assertive and confident enough in your ability to interpret the clients brief effectively and deliver one solution, why the need for multiple? Too many options and too much choice is a bad thing for clients, the result, as Lee stated, is half-arsed.
On the , Chris Adams said:
@Caroline’s comment is the root of the problem when it comes to this topic. I mean no disrespect Caroline, but that is the completely wrong attitude when it comes to design. You are paying thousands of dollars for an awesome website, logo, brochure, etc. You aren’t paying thousands of dollars to see multiple versions. The value is in the final product, not in the presentation of multiple ideas, or even in the process really. If the FedEx logo took 20 minutes to create and was the designer’s initial concept, does that make it any less valuable than the person who concepts 100 different logo types and presents a handful to the client, but the final design is far less successful?
In my experience, presenting multiple concepts results in Frankensteining the design far more often than not, and that’s never a good thing.
On the , Gerry Suchy said:
Lee,
Well said and spot on! Experience has taught me that the more options you give to the client the more you invite their obsessiveness and indecision to come to the fore. They have come to us seeking services, products and most importantly expertise. My favorite example for clients who want multiple choices is this; Would your plumber or electrician install multiple items so you can choose what looks the best? Of course not, we’re not Walmart and we shouldn’t behave as if we are. A good design brief and a rock solid contract covering revisions is all that you need. If the client doesn’t know what they want before you commit a single pixel to the layout, you are headed for trouble.
Gerry
On the , Alan Anderson said:
Lee, totally agree with you on this one again, I have never presented more than one design to a client, I present it and wait for their feedback before altering or revising. If you can get a great fact find conducted at the beginning and do your research as well, there won’t be an issues arising as you will know what your clients tastes and customer requirements are.
OK its a bit different when your building a brand up from scratch i.e. logo, print and web needs to be taken into consideration so it might take a few revisions, but if your paid to advise on the development and identity of the customer’s business then its your expertise their paying for.
Remember if you know what your doing people will see that, when asked for multiple proofs by a client I would normally ask if their customers hire them for their expertise and trust their judgement, they normally say yes, so I then tell them to trust me.
On the , Paul McCormack said:
I agree in principal but as Jason and Caroline said, it’s never that easy. I have clients who are happy for me to pitch one idea and trust that it will work for them and that’s because, after working with them for years, I know their business almost as much as they do. It’s obviously the best way to work and saves everyone time and money.
The problem is, some clients will insist on two or three options because, either they don’t really know what they want and need a starting point or they need to pitch the idea to their CEO. As Caroline said, if a client is paying thousands for a piece of design, whether it’s a website, brand, or entire marketing campaign they will want value for money. The unfortunate thing is that design can be seen as a necessary evil by some companies and they will want to make sure that they are getting their moneys worth.
There are obvious limits, and I have been guilty of occasionally over servicing some clients myself, but you need to weigh up how much the entire account is worth. If you’re taking a few thousand a year then the extra effort probably isn’t worth it. If it’s a lot more then I would rather pitch a couple of ideas than risk losing the client to someone who would be willing to go that extra mile.
Who’s to say the additional design’s have to go to waste? In this new eco-friendly climate why not recycle?
On the , Stephen Reid said:
I think it depends on the budget and the client. Some clients just take it for granted that if they are paying £££ amount that they will be shown multiple options and will be surprised if they only get one.
However the most options I have ever presented to a client have been two and when this is the case the designs are drastically different. I don’t see the point in presenting two slightly different designs. In this situation I will produce one design that in my head is the right answer for the client, usually this will be the design which is following current trends. After that I will force myself to come up with something completely different, but something I’m equally happy with.
For me this is a good exercise as it can help to break out of trends which as we know are simply “what everyone else is doing”.
Most of the time the client will pick the first design, sometimes asking for elements from the second. Recently I was required to present a design for a HTML version of a website and one for a Flash based version. The client decided they preferred the look of the “Flash” site but took our advice on the benefits of an HTML based site. In this case it has led to quite an interesting direction for the website.
Usually though, it’s one concept based on signed off wireframes that is presented to the client. They provide feedback and the project moves forward, simple.
I think we designers need to stop being so precious about our designs, listen to the clients and accept that sometimes, just sometimes they actually know their own business better than us.
On the , Paul Anthony said:
A great read Lee. Personally feel that as others have stated – budget should dictate somewhat how many options they get.
Whilst I agree completely on what you’ve stated about the design decisions (UI / UX etc) being reached prior to showcasing to a client, the aesthetics and ‘look and feel’ are a completely different matter, and are subject to tastes. Clients are flippant in this regard – ‘Pink is a bit girly etc etc’
These are often bundled together un-necessarily as ‘the solution’ when in reality they are two different things. Separating the decisions you’ve made from the look and feel often results in a much quicker turnaround in the next iteration when a client does provide feedback and say they dont like a colour or photo in a particular place etc.
Thanks for the kind words earlier BTW. :)
Paul
On the , Chris Adams said:
@Gerry, while I agree whole-heartedly with most of what you said, I have to disagree with the plumber/electrician analogy. We aren’t fixing a sink or installing a light fixture. We’re communicating someone else’s message and in a very visual manner at that. Would you hire a painter to paint your house and not expect to have a say-so in the color selection and/or see some options? I think it’s a mixture of the two analogies. While I think showing one mockup is fine, I also think that it’s far more of a team journey than fixing a sink is. I always thought it was best to present the best option and work with the client to mold it into the proper solution, visually and from a communication standpoint. Plumbers and electricians aren’t faced with the problem of sharing someone else’s message with the world.
On the , Steve D said:
@Lee Thinking about it, if you mean taking your first and only mockup to the client fairly early on in the process, then of course this is a perfectly valid method of working. But to highlight what I was pointing out, I’ll use a real life example. I was once asked to brand a sandwich shop. The client had a half-clear idea about what they wanted to be branded as. Once I’d met the staff and his team I ended up with 2 clearly defined brands in my head, one was a bubble lettering style with “typical” sandwich shop colours, and the other was a more rustic and gave them an option they hadn’t considered. I presented them with both ideas and as I mentioned before, there was no confusion, just 2 very clear directions that they could take their companies visual language. I believe it also reaffirmed the quality of the work we could/would produce for them once we were rolling with the project. I know i saves time to an extent rather than working on iterations that will possibly not be used, I was suggesting really that in my experience it can be beneficial to do 2. Unless the 2nd idea is complete rubbish of course! :-)
Plus I would agree with @Chris Adams that we should endorse what our clients know as they are then working with whatever we produce for the next few years or so. Creating that team journey can also develop good relations leading to further referrals, more work and lends itself to giving customer satisfaction.
On the , Caroline said:
Whilst this is not a session to shoot Lee down, it’s an impossible argument, and completely up to the individual.
As a designer I would discuss the clients needs with the client, I would then provide them with wireframes, maybe with options of doing things differently. eg. if you have top horizontal navigation this will leave more room beneath for other content, however if you think you might have more navigation items than a horizontal nav would allow for, then maybe the vertical left nav is your best option.
I design sites based around content management systems, which give the user the greatest of freedom, within my design – we give them choice, why restrict them.
Once the functional wireframes have been agreed we will then go into the ‘look and feel’ stage of the process. At this stage we will provide 2, maybe 3 interpretations of the clients brand – again providing choice.
The client does not want to be dictated to – do that and you will lose business. My clients trust my skills 100%. I know design & usability better than they do, they know their business and their clients better than i do…web site creation is collaborative, including choices.
Have faith in yourselves as designers – multiple choices are not ‘half-arsed’. If you feel like doing 2 designs means they get half the attention, then put in more hours – make them both 100%??
Time and budget are also factors – but essentially it’s about doing a good job, my personal opinion involves ‘choice’
On the , Wozza said:
Nice read Lee, like the style of your site and your work. I’m doing a feature on Web Designers in NI on our own site http://www.gekkoshot.com, you mind if I mention you there?
On the , Jason said:
@Caroline
Surely you should be able to dictate whether a client requires a horizontal or vertical navigation in the earlier consultations, before having to do the wireframe? Your way, to me, appears to be making the wireframes first, showing them to the client, asking them what kind of content you should be expecting, then making the choice together. The asking bit should go first.
You should be dictating the structure of the site by interpreting your clients needs…not supplying two options and holding their hand whilst they make the correct decision.
Lee says 2 designs = 50% + 50% (aka. half arsed), but you say 2 designs should = 100% + 100%. So essentially, you’re suggesting putting in twice the amount of effort for 1/2 of the work to be ditched. Whether you produce 1 or 2, neither are going to be perfect, so ‘the choice’ in either scenario is going to need further work…say, +20% ? Lee = 120%, Caroline = 220%. But, as you say, ‘time and budget are also factors’…so where are you plucking these free hours of work?
I’m not taking a dig, I’m just honestly curious to your design model.
PS. Phrase of Death…”I don’t know what I want, but I’ll know it when I see it”
On the , Lee said:
Good to see a discussion going on.
Of course, I’m not saying you should dictate to your clients “Here’s your design, that’s it”. You should work with them to address their concerns, focusing on their brand, market and typical user. And as I said, make amendments until they are happy with the finished product. But saying “Here’s two ideas, pick your favourite” is not the way to go.
@Steve D: My bad, I should have pointed out that I’m referring to web design in this post. In your example, I can understand if you’re designing a logo you may come up with several ideas at several stages so all areas are explored. But I don’t think this applies to web design.
On the , Dan said:
I believe the key here is “…should never present more than one mock-up to a client.”, and that Lee is right on the money.
Of course, you can create multiple mock-ups and A/B tests for user/usability testing, etc.
But once you’ve come out of that process, with all you’ve learned, with your experience and expertise as a designer, then by-and-large and with very few exceptions, the client’s feedback with regard to layout and design will have much weaker rationale than will yours.
The client’s feedback is nonetheless important – since it relates to a brand that they have nurtured and grown over time – and should be considered, but there’s no reason why this can’t be worked out in the context of a single mock-up.
On the , K.R. Shields said:
If enough time is spent with a client gathering detailed information about their company, their mission, past websites, their projected company direction, then I believe that you can offer one major design concept to the client and only have to construct minor variations.
Spend the right amount of time with a client to really get to know what they and their company are about, and if you are good, you will produce a result that the client will be thrilled about.
On the , Bert said:
It’s a sad reality that most clients are indeed such idiots that they cannot handle the simple process of selecting a product they like out of a multitude of variations.
If the supermarket offers you 20 jars of jam, calmly go over them and pick one that seems good. Why can’t the average human accomplish this simple task?
Sure, you can be in a hurry, I get that. But what about the people who aren’t in a hurry?
How is it that their attention-span is so short that they give up on the product.
Also, the thing with the jars isn’t completely applicable to design mockups. With the jars, it’s not a product you have to buy, you just run in to it at the market.
The mockups are something the client ordered in advance. And if it’s for business, than the client will be serious about it(I hope). The client wanted it and now receives it. He’s expecting to work with it. That’s not the same as the jars, which are randomly encountered.
Compare it to a large amount of text. If you randomly run in to it somewhere on the web, you’ll probably skip it, because it’s way too much. If you’re actively seeking info on something and are met with a large amount of text, the motivation to dig through the info is much greater.
My biggest problem is with this line:
“If you show a client two mockups and one has navigation down the left and one along the top and ask “which is your favourite?” you’re degrading your expertise.”
Certainly, you have expertise. But to claim that it must be followed at all times, is a hollow argument.
To create both mockups, you used your expertise each time. Or didn’t you? Did you just make the first one and then decided it’s the best and that all after it would be bad?
Designing isn’t about you, it’s about your customer. You’re deliberately shielding the customer from other options. As designer, you should realize that it’s rubbish to say that there’s only 1 good design for a concept. All things can be displayed in more than 1 way. Put yourself behind all the mockups, not just 1 thing you like.
This isn’t degrading your expertise, it’s using your expertise each time and letting the client choose. The person making the final judgment is the client, not the designer. The designer filters out the bad elements and puts up several good solutions. The client picks one.
And since they’re all good, there’s no such thing as “degrading your expertise”.
Unless of course you either consider it too much effort to make more than one, or just think you know it all and the customer is dumb for disagreeing with you.
On the , Jonathan Longnecker said:
Great discussion here guys. We often tell clients that we don’t provide multiple designs for web project, but explain the following collaborative process:
The first is a great way to explore a few different directions (as far as feel/color/typography goes): mood boards. These come from in depth discussions with the client, don’t take nearly as long as a full on design and can help the client pick the right mood from the get go.
Add some wireframes for structure and hierarchy and you really do end up with just one design where everyone knows how you got there.
It’s a no surprises, collaborative process and is working pretty well so far.
On the , Janna DeVylder said:
You said:
“Put all your effort and attention into one design, the one that you believe, as a professional, works best for your client.”
Seems we need to be careful that that isn’t interpreted as DON’T iterate, don’t start broad and hone in to the best solution. The potential trap is in being too focused, too early, wouldn’t you say? Perhaps that is why involving clients early on in the sketching and planning can then afford you the opportunity to provide one direction.
On the , Colin said:
Your argument is generally true. It probably applies 99% of the time. But sometimes a two-sided approach is necessary, but that should be left up to the designer to decide. As in, “During our discovery we were led down these two different paths. We are showing you both since you have the best insight into your business…”
On the , Caroline said:
@Jason we quote by the day, not by the hour – if a day is 8hrs or 12hrs, a day is a day – you just get the work done and done well. Demonstrating why we’re an NMA top100 company.
IMO i don’t think there is ever 1 solution? Look at the car market – there’s hardly one solution there. If designers think they can come up with the ‘perfect solution’ then that’s brilliant – But i don’t believe there is one solution, it’s evolutionary.
Do you design exactly what the client has asked for? or immediately give them another solution? Why not show them the pros and cons of both ways?
It might be more work (which isn’t wasted – they can chose elements from each), which makes for a happier client, which equals more work?
It seems to work for us :)
On the , Heinrich said:
I agree with what’s being said on many comment here. I feel that it’s down to the individual job and whether you think it needs more than one design. I’ve been very fortunate to only really have to produce one design, a thought out one ticking as many as the clients boxes as I can and it has worked over and over for me.
I’m not saying I haven’t had clients who wanted three of even four designs, but in those cases I’ve tried to restrict the best ideas to either the first design or the first two and really just fluffing (whether this is right or not) the third or fourth design which I know they would never choose.
As many have already said, it depends on the client and the project but I personally always aim for one design that meets the clients needs as much as humanly possible. We’re the web designers afterall and they have come to us for our expertise.
On the , Tocki said:
I both work for a advertising agency and as a freelancer. As a freelancer I never do more than one Layout and my clients realy appreciate that, because I let them be part of the design by involving them into the process.
In my work for the advertising agency my director always wants to show 3 designs to the customers.
I can’t say which is better. But for me as freelancer doing only one design works pretty good.
On the , Thomas Maas said:
Multiple concepts are often needed if the design is it’s own story (logo design, product design,…). By exploring different directions the designer is basically creating different story lines.
In many web projects the design is there to enhance the meaning and tone of the content. It’s the content that writes the story.
So it helps an awful lot if you sweat the content creation and organization process together with the client before doing any design. As a lot of design decisions follow from the content, it will be much easier for the client to understand the design and for you to motivate it.
On the , Gareth Watson said:
Lee,
I couldn’t agree with this more. In those early days I used to bust myself to complete 3 designs within the budgeted days of the contract. What this resulted in was one design that I really worked hard on to be unique and include nice aesthetic elements, one design that was a ‘safe’ design (by which I mean one that was a little boring) and one that I basically grabbed from a previous project that went unused. Every time the client went with the ‘Safe’ option meaning that my funky, cool design went unused and alot of time was wasted.
In the, and after reading Mark Boltons book, I decided to propose only one design to the client based on a more detailed requirements process (with specific attention being placed on what they did and did not like about other website). This design would lean more towards the ‘safe’ design that they would have originally got with a few aesthetic embellishments to let it stand out. I allow an additional 2 rounds of tweaks based on their feedback before we sign-off on the final design.
At first I was unsure about this process but at this stage it has stood the test of time and now we are finding a greater level of success with our output. Sometime this process needs to be explained to the client as for some reason many of them do expect a selection of designs from which to chose. Heck in some instances I’ve had clients ask me for a link to our templates so they could pick one that they liked! We have this ‘template site’ now but only as one of our website packages. Where possible we lean the customer towards a bespoke design if we feel that this will suit their requirements better.
Anyway, another great article from you good sir! Keep up the excellent work!
On the , tk said:
You could have define the mockup first. I used to make mockups for pitches to support the speach of the sales man. Never on this stage I had insight into details of the project required to design it. If that’s the case I could agree with you, otherwise it’s bullshit.
On the , Carl said:
You are right about doing just one design with your full effort and skill and adapting it to the client’s feedback. You are the ‘expert’ so you should present them with your expert design and take note of what they come back at you with.
On the , Syd Salmon said:
I strongly disagree with your contention. Our job is not to force our expertise down clients’ throats. Our job is to EDUCATE! Present evidence to support the recommendations, then allow clients to choose.
By taking the time to educate clients, it allows them to take ownership, and more importantly, responsibility for the outcomes of their projects. Educated clients are the best long-term clients because they become ‘invested partners.’
Many entrepreneurial successes have been created by “breaking the rules.”
On the , Andrew said:
Sorry, I don’t agree with this. In my experience you have a much greater chance of one of your designs being signed off by a client if you present 2 designs. It’s a psychological thing – people like choice. Also, it makes clients feel like they’re in control and a part of the development process. And I’m not sure I completely agree that a designer’s expertise always trumps a client’s opinion. They probably know their business much better than you do and should always be given the opportunity to say what they do and don’t like.
On the , Rachel said:
I would argue that it’s an important part of the design process to work through several options. As a design responsible for creating multiple concepts, I’ve often found that sometimes my first idea isn’t the strongest or the most compelling. Each client and project is unique, and sometimes it may be that multiple views are needed.
On the , Jeff Deibel said:
Hi Lee,
I agree that designers shouldn’t present multiple options for the sake of presenting multiple options, but I do believe there is more than one solution to a problem.
For instance, if you task three talented designers to make the same web page, each designer is going to present a different solution. Sure, core elements (navigation, search bar, etc) will most likely mirror each other in location in each rendition; however, they will not be exact replicas.
When in the exploratory stages of design a lot roads that look promising lead to dead ends, but you don’t know they are dead ends until you reach the end.
Thanks for the interesting article.
Jeff
On the , Olivia Gresham said:
I don’t know about this… When you’re dealing with a client that really has no idea of what they want and you’re trying to get a feel of what they like you’ll need at least 3: two complete opposites, and one in the middle. Don’t ever show them a concept you’d hate to do (or couldn’t put in your portfolio). That eliminates working on, even if they don’t like a concept you come up with give them what they want but always offer your professional opinion and justify it.
On the , Steve said:
@caroline
Do you take your car to a mechanic and ask him to give to option on how to fix it?
On the , Steve said:
*correct typo*
@caroline
Do you take your car to a mechanic and ask him to give you two options on how to fix it?
On the , Gareth Watson said:
@andrew I think that the key thing here, at least it is for us, is that are customers aren’t able to budget for the time required to create multiple designs from which to make a decision.
When I started designing websites I tried multiple options and it near killed me trying to squeeze the work in, or worse doing work outside of set hours to accommodate that requirement.
In an ideal world we could budget in many days for the initial design process and allow them the option of choosing whichever one they like best. However in my experience what ended up happening is that it became obvious which designs ended up being picked and as such I reapplied this to one single strong design with a strong discovery phase rather than giving multiple design options. I have yet to have a client come back and outright shoot down that initial design – so far!!
Clearly there are different ways to approach this particular topic and for me Lee’s solution is the same as we have used and for us this has been the better practise.
On the , Lee said:
Liking the range of opinions here, good debate and good to hear everyone’s experience.
The point is just don’t show 3 different options for the sake of it, or because you feel you have to. Of course you yourself are going to tinker with several options, either in Photoshop or in the browser, but when you come up with what you think is the best option, present that one to your client. Don’t think “Great, that’s one good mockup sorted, now lets start all over again because I better show them another option”.
Like I said before, in the research stage show them different layouts of existing sites and get a feel for what they like and dislike.
On the , tk said:
educate, limit impact, present no choice, we are the expert client knows nothing. yeah I’ve been there already. How about involving the client into the decision making process? How about presenting them with options and consequences of they choices? When designing a page you often will come across few problems which needs to get solved. Don’t use entire mockup to do that alert only those areas. Present choices limited to single modules. Here’s layout with overall feel to it. Navigation? We can do this and that. Thank you.
But this said there is a client and then there is a client. If you don’t trust your client to make right decisions, leave it. Do something else.
Your project will never be perfect even if you build it for yourself, no client and you only are you sure you’ll make best calls? Best decisions? Man… I wish I had your brain.
On the , Andrew said:
Lee, I think you’re right – I don’t think you should create additional options just for the sake of it. If you feel that you’ve got one strong idea after a really good research phase then that may be enough. However, if your discovery phase wasn’t as thorough as it could be, then you might be better off offering additional options. I have found that clients love to have a choice and it just increases your chance of getting approval and moving on. In all the digital agencies I’ve worked in, we factor this into the budget so spending time on it is not generally a problem.
On the , tk said:
@Steve would you like your mechanic to tell you:
I can fix the X problem for £50, it won’t last for long however because the problem with X is caused by Y. Y I’m afraid is more expensive to fix but it will last longer.
or:
yeah, it’s fixed and you owe me £300,-
tell me
On the , Stan Zukowski said:
We start with in-depth discussions with the client on what they want the website to do, including who their visitor demographics are, what their call(s) to action might be, technical functionality needs ~ basic info architecture stuff. Form follows function.
Then we go to a wireframe. We go through multiple revisions of the wireframe before we ever get to the design.
We always offer, depending on the contract price, 2-3 design comps for a website. However, we produce them one at a time. If the client doesn’t like the first comp at all ~ which is very rare ~ then we move to additional comps if necessary. Usually what happens is that MOST of the first design is accepted, and then we’re into tweaks rather than complete redesign.
So I agree, but there’s no reason not to OFFER additional design comps as part of the original contract. That way you’re covered financially if they’re needed, and if they’re not, then you’ve just boosted your margin :^)
On the , Steve said:
@tk
Both options provide the same outcome.
But I wouldn’t opt for the first one. What is the point of having a half fixed car just because its cheaper? You get what you pay for.
The debate here is about choice for the client. The client chooses a studio/design based on their portfolio or past work and then after the briefing stage, which should highlight anything that the clients wants to include or see, the design should provide a design that fits the brief.
Amendments are to be expected but there should never be two solutions to the same problem from one source.
On the , evan said:
I’ve heard something similar regarding brand agencies. Smaller agencies will provide multiple examples of logo designs, color palettes, etc. While the bigger agencies usually come back with 2-3 very similar designs and a stack of research backing their designs up.
Either way though, there was never just one option. You should at least have a variation of the design that doesn’t stray too far from the original. Enough to show variety, but not enough to spin out of control or become a Frankenstein site. Possibly a color palette and type face variation or minor layout change. But definitely not multiple extremes of the concept.
On the , Caroline said:
@tk i couldn’t agree more!
@steve terrible analogy dude!
On the , Steve said:
“Good ideas rarely come in bunches. The designer who voluntarily presents his client with a batch of layouts does so not out of prolificacy, but out of uncertainty or fear.” Paul Rand
On the , Alexa said:
In the past I used to design 2-3 ‘versions’ of a solution for clients. I’ve since changed this process to producing thought out wireframes, functionality etc, then a design that compliments both the functionality and the initial meetings discussions around goals, intent, history, brand etc.
I find this a much more professional, productive use of my and my client’s time, rather than battling “merging of designs”, and counterproductive suggestions when produced with choice.
I try to take critique and client suggestions into account when doing any resulting modifications. Since this is what I’ve delivered to them to the best of my ability, taking in account the research and info they’ve provided… ‘choices’ can be unclear or confusing I think. I like focusing on what makes the design strong, bringing back comparisons to the goal/brand/etc and not dilute the message by giving more than one solution inviting them to pick and choose from.
On the , Catherine Azzarello said:
Absolutely, Lee!
Web design is so much more than looks. Brief –> wireframes w/iterations –> PSDs w/iterations –> code –> test –> launch.
And by plural wireframes and PSDs, I mean a set–landing page + secondary page–not completely different approaches.
Solving the client needs based on Brief and functionality is the way to go.
On the , Jason said:
I’d like to just repeat K.R Shield’s comment:
“If enough time is spent with a client gathering detailed information about their company, their mission, past websites, their projected company direction, then I believe that you can offer one major design concept to the client and only have to construct minor variations.”
This has been the case for literally 95% of projects I’ve worked on. If you listen to the client, you can determine many of the generic features (e.g. navigation direction) before a wireframe / design is even drafted. And in the other 5%, it’s happened as Stan Zukowski outlined.
@Syd Salmon – I agree that the major battle is to educate a client. But as you disagree with the idea of only supplying just one design, I am led to assume that you create multiple designs with
@Caroline – there’s perhaps 25 contributors here now, yet I don’t see a single name-drop…was it necessary for you to break the chain and mention the company you work for is an NMA top100? Were you trying to give your comments extra weight?
On the , Jason said:
sorry…forgot to finish my point to Syd Salmon:
@Syd Salmon – I agree that the major battle is to educate a client. But as you disagree with the idea of only supplying just one design, I am led to assume that you create multiple designs with the sole intention of using them to educate?
A meeting with a pen and notepad or even a telephone call can easily educate a client to why an approach is wrong / ill-advised…It seems, to me, that your approach is about spending time working on shiny one-off presentation to educate in one go, rather than to just engage with the client when they ask the question.
On the , Mark Poppen said:
I agree for the most part with Lee. What we usually do is design 1 wireframe and make sure the client understands this is not written in stone. Anything can still be changed. Same goes for a mockup. We provide 1, according to the wireframe we agreed on. Again: If you don’t like it, we can change it, or even scratch it and restart.
It’s important to know what you’re up against before you start designing anything. That’s why a “Hey, I need a website, how much will that cost me” will never get you an answer..
On the , Kevin Cannon said:
I always produce one design for a clients.
However, you shouldn’t be militant about it. For some clients, especially ones where various different directions could be beneficial. Doing a ‘design exploration’ with mood boards and design concepts can b a valuable part of design process. The main thing is just that they should pay for this. :)
On the , Alconcalcia said:
Some of the analogies on here are, frankly, rubbish. Of course a mechanic doesn’t give you options on how to fix a fault – there is invariably only one mechanical solution, but when it comes to advertising and marketing there are many possible creative solutions otherwise Guinness would be running the same ads they were running 50 years ago, and so would everyone else.
Maybe when it comes to web design it is different if you are just talking about a layout, where to put the buttons, menu bar etc. No point then in giving the client loads of permutations but if it is creativity from a blank page start you are talking about then there is always more than one way to interpret a brief and thus invariably more than one idea worth presenting.
On the , Caroline said:
@Jason maybe i did – clearly didn’t work! but we deal with huge clients, with enormous budgets – so maybe you understanding that, helps you understand my process?
On the , Gareth Watson said:
Just to sidestep the conversation slightly I have noticed in a few of the comments people talking about the topic of Project Ownership. Some have criticised that only showing 1 design removes an element of control from the client. Others have argued that showing only 1 design somehow enforces our will onto the client by giving them no scope for moving away from our vision for their website.
I would like to explain my take on this, and this goes back to my days as a project manager on system installations. I always make a point of explaining to the client (or customer as the case can sometimes be with us) that we are only facilitators in helping them create their website. We advise as best we can and make sure that we are always available when they need us. We also don’t want them to feel overwhelmed since in many cases that client might still be running a full time business whilst only being able to devote portions of time to the website. There can be a pretty tricky balancing act in there at times.
However for the most part we always remind the client that the website is their project and to never keep any thoughts or feelings to themselves. If we show a design and it isn’t what they had in mind then they are always free to send us back to the drawing board to go again. Now obviously the budget plays a big part in the amount of freedom that we have here but we can set those expectations at an early stage.
The bottom line is that I still feel strongly that a single design proposal based on a strong requirements gathering stage will usually result in the best option for the client. I’ve even had experiences where, after we’ve submitted our designs, that the client has signed off on it despite not being what they had in mind. This is because what they had in mind wasn’t quite as good as what we delivered… hey, it happens!
On the , Steve said:
@ Catherine Azzarello
Exactly… ‘Solving the client needs based on Brief and functionality is the way to go.’
Maybe the mechanic analogue isn’t the best but what about artists, or any industry for that matter, creative or not. We don’t expect our print suppliers to supply us with two finished brochure prints, for us then to then choose one. All the choice and development should come during the briefing stage.
Design is a creative process and different ideas should be tried and some used but some not but we should never supply two answers to the same brief to the client. All that does is highlight that we’re not fully comfortable with either.
As designers were employed to make a decision between solutions for the client based on our knowledge and experience and their brief and input. We should be confident in our own ability to get it right.
Having said that, if it works for you to produce more than one version and submit it, all power to you.
Thanks to Lee for opening the debate!
On the , Syd Salmon said:
Great discussion and debate. Jason thanks for your comments. There’s too much work and not enough money to waste time on concepts that are never going to go anywhere.
To clarify, I find that discovery interviews and the education process narrows down the range so that I’m offering a couple (usually) cosmetic variations. Even with sophisticated clients, a little choice seems to garner more unconditional support for the chosen concept
On the , Matthieu Desjardins said:
Good points! It’s always tempting to think that if we give clients multiple choices they are more likely to think we are productive. But like you mentionned in your article this usualy mean that some, if not all, those desgns will be rushed and that quality will suffer. And the comment that they almost always pick the ‘wrong’ design is so true!
So, tx for the advice! I’ll put this in practice, promise!
On the , Mike said:
I approach my clients with the single initial idea, based on taking a brief and exploring further considerations and requirements by asking questions such as ‘any guidelines to adhere to or free reign?’,'what’s your target audience’ etc, along with requesting examples of what sites they like and why [although any decent client will have provided this as their planning process]. From that I’ll create a preview to which I ask for constructive criticism and feedback, with the intention of altering or continuing my tangent as appropriate.
Giving a choice is noble idea, but when you plan properly you should be able to go in the right direction for your clients needs from the outset – without worrying about the possibility your client may backtrack and change their mind as they’ve developed a fondness of design option B, rather than C that you’ve been working on since day one… It also means that you develop one idea in the right direction, not come up with another potential miss on the exploration of finding what client likes as they’re indecisive or unsure.
It’s always going to be a development progression from using one idea or several so multiple versions are ultimately encountered either way. As long as clients understand ‘changes = time’ and you communicate regularly, it usually results in a better end product.
On the , naviv said:
I have to say, I don’t agree with this. If I am paying someone 10k for a website draft…I reiterate draft…I better not just see one concept. I need to at least see 2 drafts of a home page and we can take it from there. Also, it depends on the client. If you are doing design for Nike and come to the table with 1 concept I don’t think they would be that happy. Web design or an ad campaign. I have never heard any agency just coming to the table with one idea.
Doing 1 might be an issue per design capacity. I don’t know, you tell me.
On the , Ryan Downie said:
Personally I don’t see why people provide the client more than one mockup to the client.
If you have done proper research, planning, wireframes and mood boards there is no need as you have set the clients expectations and the style and the content is defined.
Over the last six months I have been using that process and wont move on from one stage to the next unless its signed off and they understand the process.
Educating the client on how our process will save hours of design edits
On the , Jack Wheeler said:
Good post!
If you go through the entire process of creating a mood board and wireframes, and keep the client in the loop as you do these, there should only be a need for one mock up. The client will have seen and been involved in the process up through this point, and so the mock up should have very few surprises.
Objections at this point can almost always be solved by minor iterations.
On the , Jen Germann said:
Very well said. I don’t offer clients multiple, full-blown design options either, though I do offer a few wireframe examples. I get enough information from them before I ever put pencil to paper and by the time the wireframe stage is done, we already know where the site is headed. I’ve never had an issue with any client because I only offer them one fully loaded design option. Communication is the key.
On the , Ben Peck said:
It depends on the size of the project. If your doing a 30k+ job having a couple well thought out options is a good idea. But if your doing a 2k job one is the way to go for sure.
On the , Antonea Nabors said:
Great post Lee. As I’ve read through these comments I can see where some of these readers are coming from, however I’d have to agree with you. I think one design comp should be enough, but if you do go with one design comp I think it is a great idea to share it with another fellow designer before sending it off. Having more than one design helps you pick up your mistakes I believe, so if you were to only present one design comp to a client, it is best to get a second opinion before sending it off.
On the , Dan said:
Ben,
How and why should budget affect your approach?
I’d say budget should really only affect scope.
I don’t think that Lee is presenting the one-mockup approach as a cost-saving measure.
On the , Lee said:
@Dan: I agree. I don’t think the budget should dictate whether you deliver multiple mockups or not. You still use the same process. Of course it comes down to communication between you and your client. Whether you’re being paid 30k+ or 2k make sure both parties are clear about your process from the start.
On the , Ben Peck said:
@dan @lee: I’m new to this blog so I really don’t know your backgrounds but from an agency perspective you land a deal with a client for 30k+ job and you have multiple designers on staff I would pick two designers you feel would best fit the specified project and have them both flesh out a concept. I’m not suggesting define your business model off of how much money you pay is how many concepts you get by any means.
I don’t think that one designer need do more that one developed concept. Although I do expect them to have more than one sketch or idea to choose from (internally) before fleshing it all out.
If a client is going to pay that much for a site the scope is definitely the largest determinant of cost but creating the best possible solution for them is your job and it should be handled by a team (if independent, bounced off other creatives).
On the , Dan said:
@ben: Just to clarify, I’m more developer than designer, but I have almost daily dealings with design agencies, and also with the business (client), so I have a fairly solid grasp of designer/client relationships and communication.
I’m all for different ideas, concepts and approaches internally; that’s the only way you’re going to arrive at one best solution.
But the point here is that giving the client multiple options is basically shooting yourself in several of your feet, as Lee and others have detailed above.
On the , Mike said:
You want to see a prime example of what happens when you give multiple options to the client? Look at the Oklahoma City Thunder (NBA team) logo. They were given 2 or 3 strong designs to choose from, and forced the agency to cannibalize the worst bit of each one and slapped it into the awful logo they have now.
On the , Ben Peck said:
@dan: Thanks for the clarification. Its always nice to know a little more about the people I’m communicating with.
I’m an independent designer/developer and I know exactly where you’re coming from. I myself have never presented more than one “design” to a client. After going through the process of 1. Research/Marketing, 2. Wire-framing, 3 Design, 4. Development there really should be no surprise when the design rolls around.
The point we’re debating is with the agency model. Wether they should show multiple ones to the client. I think that lies with the creative director and his or her confidence. Ideally he should only show the client the best solution.
I think agencies are afraid to show just one because of the fear of them not liking it. Especially when there is a larger price tag associated with it. Now I don’t believe they should be afraid at all but I’ve known many that have been. Personally I’ve never been afraid to present a design/concept to a client.
This brings up the question of weather a client should have one decision maker for the project or have a committee. Almost the same argument but from the other side of the table. Design by committee never works so why should presenting more than one concept.
I’m all for the one concept and one decision maker.
On the , Dan said:
@ben, I guess that is where I see the role of Art Director – in tying the work of several designers together into a clear, consistent and cohesive product that is best for the client.
Design-by-committee means you get the ‘worst of both worlds’, so-to-speak.
Compromise to the lowest common denominator.
On the , Ben Peck said:
@dan: Amen, It just too bad that there are so many unqualified Art Directors out there.
On the , Lee said:
@Ben: I’m coming from a freelancer perspective so can’t really comment on the agency approach although I guess it depends what the client’s expectations when they hire you. Definitely makes sense to bounce some ideas about and try a few things in house.
On the , Jason said:
And I thought the Phrase of Death was…
“I don’t know what I want but I’ll know it when I see it”
It’s quite obviously “Design by committee”!
“This brings up the question of weather a client should have one decision maker for the project or have a committee. Almost the same argument but from the other side of the table. Design by committee never works so why should presenting more than one concept.” – Good point Dan
It’s just a shame it’s rarely the case! : (
“Brb, I’ll just go get my nephew to look over your designs…he’s been studying ICT at college and should be able to polish it up”.
On the , Kai Brethouwer said:
One thing that is key in the design process is collaboration. The client needs to feel that he is involved in the process, that his opinion counts.
Design decisions are not solely the domain of the professional, as much as designers sometimes think they are or should be.
This doesn’t necessarily mean presenting more than one option, but it does mean allowing the client to partake in the process. Show him the wireframe, with rationale. Show him the colour palette, with rationale. Get a signoff at every stage. Keep them involved at every stage. If you’ve chosen a dark blue and the client isn’t convinced that it’s right, humour him and show him a lighter blue, this is not the same as showing multiple ‘finished’ designs. It’s the process of exploration, to move from something indeterminate to a possible ‘right’ solution.
As mentioned by others, the client usually know their business better than the designer does. Collaboration with the client is not the same as design by committee. It is our job to back up a design proposal with a solid rationale, referring back to the clients brief.
It’s through good communication with the client, early on in the design process, and every step of the way, that we win the clients confidence. The client will not feel the need to get his nephew to look over our designs if he understands and has confidence in the process we take them through.
Never say no to a client, instead say: Yes, we can do that, however that would result in “rationale against the clients request”, is that what you want?
On the , David said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJthkRrQcfo
On the , Kai Brethouwer said:
David’s link above to youtube is nothing short of brilliant. To me this really answers what we’re all talking about here. Of course, it takes a seasoned designer with a large body of work to make such bold statements, but at the same time, it shows what I think we should all aspire to. My comments about good communication, a solid rationale, and winning your clients confidence fit with what Steve Jobs says about Paul Rand.
Steve Jobs talks about Paul Rand, who designed the apple logo:
He really approached it as a problem that needed to be solved, not as an artistic challenge for it’s own sake. He is one of the most professional people I’ve ever worked with, in the sence that he’d thought through the formal relationship between a client and a professional such as himself. Therefore he had very clear conclusions about what the relationship meant to both parties and how it should be conducted, and I asked him if he would come up with a few options. And he said:
“No, I will solve your problem for you, and you will pay me. You don’t have to use the solution, if you want options, go talk to other people, but I’ll solve your problem for you the best way I know how, and you use it or not, that’s up to you, you’re the client.”
On the , Andrew said:
—coming from a web site design angle—
I agree (especially on the issue of feedback and reiteration), but there are a few more angles to this. We prefer the single option in our large education institution, and thats for a number of reasons; in dealing with committees and too many options you tend to get everyone wanting their opinion implemented. The result is a ‘dogs breakfast’. You need to do as much of the hard decision making before you go to the committee, while leaving enough choice for the group to feel useful by clarifying uncertain areas. In part the designer also needs to be a very good salesperson, communicator, presenter and diplomat.
We also work on tiny budgets, so theres not the time or justification for multiple attempts. In corporate environments there are often fairly tight constraints on various branding/identity elements with new sites needing to fit the ‘house style’. Many sites are often add-ons or adaptations of existing sites and probably are built around a template/CMS with its own constraints. All of this works in favour of a single well-considered design.
One very important thing to make clear is that the single design presented is the result of much sketching, testing and playing with ideas that could easily have been shown to the client as possible design directions. That single design is not as simple as some folk here have implied.
In fact, I often make as part of my client presentation of a design a little background to my process, showing the various directions I went but abandoned, and explaining why. The client gets to see that you are in fact ‘the expert’ and understands why you got to that single point. They appreciate the inclusiveness while at the same time you are building trust and ‘educating’ them for the design process next time. Often you get agreement with small changes. Worst case, is a reworked iteration of the design – not a redesign. Iterations are expected and good, but not the same as inventing entirely different designs.
On the , James said:
It might be interesting to find out what everyone’s clients actually think about this topic! Design is always subjective. For my money, always two routes or variations unless you are (close to) 100% sure one concept is spot on (be honest!). J
On the , Robert Leeper said:
This is great… the comments are where the real story really is!
I’ve been working toward this workflow for a while now, and I can say it definitely has merit. I hope over time it’ll become the standard.
@Rachel I agree, we shouldn’t consider our work done just because we’ve our first design concept. I do think, however, that we should only present the best design. If it requires a few attempts to get there, fine, but we shouldn’t have our minds made up from the beginning that we have a Design Attempt Quota that must be reached.
On the , Paul Olyslager said:
I agree that designers should focus on the best possible design solutions, but sometimes the client just wants to see some alternatives. For me that is OK for several reasons: the first is the fact that the client is paying, obviously. The second reason is that I don’t see any harm in presenting them some alternatives as this is a part of designing in the first place.
Presenting the client with one or two variations (only little differences), shows them that I did my homework, looked into every possible solution and I did a thorough research. Just to make it clear, when I’m talking about variations I do not present a complete different design. It’s rather a different placement of elements, how people filter products, …
The key in this story (several variations) is to know how to sell the design you prefer!
On the , Dan said:
I think a lot of people are missing the point that you would do revisions and keep coming back with changes and improvements. Some people seem to be getting all up in arms about the idea of just presenting one idea and then just being done with it.
The only time I would disagree would be with logo design. With web design, there’s far more science, there are a lot of things which categorically must be in a ‘good’ website. but with logo design there’s a lot more room for deviation from ‘standards’
On the , @chrisota said:
Very interesting way to put it. I liked the analogy about ‘jam for sale in a supermarket’. I guess it is the same when shopping for a car, the customer tells you they want a car. You don’t show them a van, truck then a car.
Get it right the first time.
On the , James said:
But do they want a blue or red car? It comes down to the brief and frankly some clients don’t have too much of clue about what they want or need. So I think you have to make a call as to whether you tell them they need a blue car or show them the red and the blue and ask them to make choice. If only it were as simple as red and blue vans, trucks and cars!
On the , Syd Salmon said:
‘Jam for sale in a supermarket’ and ‘shopping for a car’ illustrate my point perfectly.
Shopping malls and auto malls are highly effective at helping their vendors sell more because they offer CHOICE.
I’m not advocating creating unnecessary work. Our laws require courts because they are open to interpretation, how much more a client that only has a vague notion of what they truly want.
Apple’s Macintosh products are an excellent example. Apple offers just enough variation that customers feel that they have choice. Their balance sheet and income statement would suggest to me that there is incredible value in creating an intelligent short list from which clients are responsible for making their choice.
On the , James said:
An intelligent shortlist. Spot on! What we haven’t perhaps thought about is when there are conflicting objectives in the brief. Without showing variations and alternatives, how else can you explain to a client that they can have A or they can have B but it won’t work if they have both. There is very often a compromise and only the client can ultimaty judge that.
On the , Dan said:
Syd, Apple’s product range is not an excellent example – it’s a wrong example. Apple only offer choice because they have more than one client.
This is analogous to a designer creating a different design for each client, which is, of course, correct.
However, if Apple only had one customer, they’d only build one version of the iPod; the version that best suited the requirements of that one client.
On the , Syd Salmon said:
@Dan You’re right that the example may not be perfect.
However, in both cases the needs of the client/consumer are aggregated. I think it’s fair to suggest that most clients have multiple people with disparate needs contributing to the overall vision of a given project.
Good organizations have often made their compromises before presenting their RFP, whether formal or not. Upon new information being offered by the design team, rather than a single unified vision, multiple ideas emerge from clients—sometimes competing or ambiguous. It is their responsibility to make the compromises necessary to result in a harmonious mosaic. More than one interpretation gets them to see the big picture faster.
On the , jiewmeng said:
i don’t agree that we should not design more because of more work tho. i think it can act as part of the process and is good practice afterall. maybe a few unique choices for the client is good tho. i don’t believe that i am always right. a few choices will act as good practice and allows the client to choose which will be best. i think getting the reason as to why they choose the design over the rest will be good
On the , rod rodriguez said:
Great job Lee, this topic is very interesting and you have made some good points. I love coming here for this kind of stuff.
On the , Xplore Studio said:
Some great points raised, and I must agree in some cases the one concept design will work – but in many other cases I can see a project heading in two possible directions.
Thanks for the great post…
On the , 51 Website Design said:
Good point here. I was actually considering the idea of producing more than 1 mockup. I can’t remember what post I read, but it suggested that I create more than one mockup.
On the , Chris Whiteley said:
A short quick read that convinces me to stop doing two mockups!
Previously I had always done 2 mockups and the client would always choose the wrong one. I made up for the “time lost” from doing the second mockup by turning it into a free WordPress Theme to give away to promote myself, however I really think I will start giving the client 1 option. I am the expert right?
On the , Drew said:
There are some great comments here. As designers of anything we have to learn not to be apologetic for our talents. I’ve been designing buildings for 30 years and I have never won a project with the three option stratagy. It detracts from your expertise and confuses the client. I’ve also found that you never send a “preview”. It’s imperitive to stay in control and explain the story at the presentation. In my humble opinion – great design is not a democratic process – it’s a benevolent dictatorship.
On the , Ben said:
Nice lively debate going on here. For me, this says it all : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb8idEf-Iak&t=3m10s
On the , Troy said:
I totally get it, I’m doing two mockups right now for a client and everything your saying is the truth. After I’m done with this client, I’m only doing one mockup for now on. Thanks bro, this was a good read!
On the , Shawn said:
I agree completely. I learned the hard way. You need to do your preliminary work of talking with the client and getting a firm idea of what they are looking for, then you can get their feedback on changes they may want after they have seen the 1 mock-up.
On the , Sasikumar said:
“Never supply a client with more than one option,
You should have final decision based on your expertise.”
Great!
Thanks
On the , Jonathan said:
I agree. Usually my first submission is my best. I may have color variations, however, experience has taught me that there’s one way to design a site- and that’s the right way.
I think as you gain more confidence in your skill you being to present less and less options and you have no issue explaining to your client, that this is the best design for the job.
Thanks for the article.
On the , Troy said:
For me, unless I am instructed to submit multiple designs by my boss, I submit multiple variations of the one design. I find that it gets them thinking about the general approach I am taking and their critiques are usually built around my core design. Not saying they never reject the whole thing and I have to start over, but more times than not, it works out.
“One of the more common problems which tends to create doubt and confusion is caused by the inexperienced and anxious executive who innocently expects, or even demands, to see not one but many solutions to a problem.”
- Paul Rand
http://www.paul-rand.com/foundation/thoughts_politics/#.UDVOyaMkQrx