One design or a lot?
In recent years, I have been thinking about the question: how much better is it to draw design layouts for the same page (in particular, for the main one, because it is often the subject of possible disputes). I decided to outline all my thoughts on this matter in this article, perhaps, it will ease the principle of interaction with the client (or people in Habram will prompt some more interesting ideas).
The main problem when a client comes in and asks for several design options is that, in essence, when a designer paints a design, he chooses the most appropriate solution, in his opinion. And all other design options either beat what is already there, or are altogether a hack, which is supposedly "another option." Therefore, it is believed that it is better to develop one version of the site design and gradually improve it in the process. This has several advantages:
I want to immediately make a reservation: we are talking about projects of simple and medium complexity (and the same budget). Using this approach, it will be easy for a freelancer or a small design studio to reduce costs and produce a truly high-quality and thoughtful product. After all, most often in small studios or groups of freelancers 1 person works on the design, it will be hard for him to create some really high-quality, but different concepts for the client.
It seems to me that this method will help not only the work of freelancers and small studios, but also large ones (with a reservation on a limited budget and project level) for the same reason mentioned above: all design costs will be closed in the early design stages.
')
In the case when the client is not clear what is needed - we also draw an arrow from design to design. The resulting picture is somewhat reminiscent of a time travel device from the movie “Back to the Future”, which well reflects the essence of the sometimes endless process of creating a design object (when you return to the same thing again and again).
Of course, in a situation where “a client needs several designs, ” it will incur additional costs, and it will at least be reduced to the situation “a client needs several concepts ” (in large studios, a separate designer or individual designer should work on each concept design groups + designers, etc.). But in any case, it will reduce the costs of customers and developers, because a crude concept (an idea in the bare form) will be designed, which can be easily accepted or eliminated in the early stages.
The most interesting thing is that if a certain design task can be performed in different ways, then in the end, all the same, the only correct decision remains to be made (well, or a wrong one :) . “ Correctness ” in this case will already depend on the developer’s professionalism, tests carried out during and after the delivery of the project, polishing, and understanding by the client and designer of the target audience. That is, as a result, the decision is one, and the design is one, not many.
Although, I'm talking about banal things, but not all clients agree with this, and the arguments that I brought, the developers do not always immediately come to mind. The idea is that this payment is not just for the design, but for something more, that is, the price of the issue should essentially be higher than is usually required.
These thoughts would be incomplete or too idealistic if it were not for our harsh reality.
Considering such realistic scenarios, I still come to the conclusion that here the problem of the number of “designs” is more in some personal conventions: “everybody does that”, “the director already likes” ... Therefore, to achieve a good result from the design, you need personal put on the back burner. In the first and second cases , it turns out that the client does not know what he wants, so he needs a choice. But there is a way out.
The problem, of course, is more general in nature - not only the clients are to blame for their being clients. Many designers in the post-Soviet space have also become designers, as clients have learned from clients themselves (what is there to hide is such). This raises a large number of related questions about the competence of each other. But nothing prevents to make attempts of mutual education.
For example, by making a store redesign, you can analyze its performance and tell the customer something like the following: “We made you a redesign, which over the course of a year increased your conversion by 400% and brought a lot of money. We estimate that an additional redesign will be able to bring this figure up to 1000%. ” Thus, it is possible to make a “good” design gradually.
There are situations when a client is willing to pay for the detailed elaboration of several concepts, which should cost quite a lot, and I would not call it a different whim than with whim (except for cases where the client or the decision maker, as I wrote above, does not know what he wants). In general, it disciplines - even if the client then, says that all the garbage done, let's repeat, he was warned in advance what he was unobtrusively informed about. Although, using this approach, most often you need to look back and ask yourself - did I follow the chosen concept and did this design really meet the needs of the client and its target audience ...
Returning to the topic, I want to clarify that for each design problem you can come up with many solutions (concepts), but there is no point in orienting some mythical “several options” - the chosen concept is trivially stated at the meeting with the client after proposing various options (yes with a client who knows what his buyer wants, who can determine the compliance of the chosen direction with the policy of his company, who makes decisions).
User avkoval gave a link to a wonderful lecture about another development method (including design products), which is called “ set based design ”. Its essence is that several concepts are being developed in parallel and no final decision is made until the very last moment . This allows you to look at the whole system and make really balanced decisions, based on a large number of really worthy alternatives. For example, you can create several highly developed concepts of the site and then transfer the ideas you like from one concept to another (it is important to correctly allocate resources and have them).
This method will be very expensive, but for large and serious projects it will provide savings (perhaps not instantly, but in the future). So, at the lecture an interesting example was given when the printer developer calculated that in order to increase the number of sales they need to implement the function of removing red eyes from photos. The team had 12 weeks and 2 algorithms for this: simple, but working, and complex, advanced, but which may lead to failures or not be completed in time. Which option to choose a team? The correct answer is both! It is necessary to work out both concepts, because simple in any case will be ready in time, and difficult, if not ready in time, then at least in the future will give the company an advantage. Thus, in the long run, this is a saving - if not money, then time is exactly what is even more important in business (see the lecture below for details) is very interesting.
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. You need to choose the right concept based on budget, risk, level of complexity of business tasks, scale and your resources.
Related Literature:
"One" design
The main problem when a client comes in and asks for several design options is that, in essence, when a designer paints a design, he chooses the most appropriate solution, in his opinion. And all other design options either beat what is already there, or are altogether a hack, which is supposedly "another option." Therefore, it is believed that it is better to develop one version of the site design and gradually improve it in the process. This has several advantages:
- Time is saved due to the fact that the designer is completely given to the chosen direction.
- The client is more involved in the process, since iterations with it will arise already in the early stages.
- For the same reason, if there are questions on design, they can be stopped in the early stages.
Situations when “the client is a fool, does not understand anything in design, and we are so good, but we are forced to do badly ” in this situation are reduced to almost zero - the concept is initially created, the test version and then it becomes cluttered with design. Moreover, at each such stage, you can insure yourself and reassure the stage, for example, with an act so that there will be no questions later (but this is already the lyrics and digression from the topic, the essence, I think, is understandable).
I want to immediately make a reservation: we are talking about projects of simple and medium complexity (and the same budget). Using this approach, it will be easy for a freelancer or a small design studio to reduce costs and produce a truly high-quality and thoughtful product. After all, most often in small studios or groups of freelancers 1 person works on the design, it will be hard for him to create some really high-quality, but different concepts for the client.
It seems to me that this method will help not only the work of freelancers and small studios, but also large ones (with a reservation on a limited budget and project level) for the same reason mentioned above: all design costs will be closed in the early design stages.
')
In the case when the client is not clear what is needed - we also draw an arrow from design to design. The resulting picture is somewhat reminiscent of a time travel device from the movie “Back to the Future”, which well reflects the essence of the sometimes endless process of creating a design object (when you return to the same thing again and again).
Quality, not quantity
Of course, in a situation where “a client needs several designs, ” it will incur additional costs, and it will at least be reduced to the situation “a client needs several concepts ” (in large studios, a separate designer or individual designer should work on each concept design groups + designers, etc.). But in any case, it will reduce the costs of customers and developers, because a crude concept (an idea in the bare form) will be designed, which can be easily accepted or eliminated in the early stages.
The most interesting thing is that if a certain design task can be performed in different ways, then in the end, all the same, the only correct decision remains to be made (well, or a wrong one :) . “ Correctness ” in this case will already depend on the developer’s professionalism, tests carried out during and after the delivery of the project, polishing, and understanding by the client and designer of the target audience. That is, as a result, the decision is one, and the design is one, not many.
Although, I'm talking about banal things, but not all clients agree with this, and the arguments that I brought, the developers do not always immediately come to mind. The idea is that this payment is not just for the design, but for something more, that is, the price of the issue should essentially be higher than is usually required.
Russian model
These thoughts would be incomplete or too idealistic if it were not for our harsh reality.
- For example, take the same tender, where from one studio requires several concepts. At the same time, the developers understand that if they are not beautifully executed, they will not see the order.
- This can generally be directly related to the decision-making mechanism of particularly large customers (banks and similar large structures): the manager consults with the marketer, the marketer with the IT specialist, then everyone gathers for a joint board with the general director and makes a decision. And here, as many know, perhaps the impossible. Yes, and for each mini-stage of development is often simply impossible to organize.
Considering such realistic scenarios, I still come to the conclusion that here the problem of the number of “designs” is more in some personal conventions: “everybody does that”, “the director already likes” ... Therefore, to achieve a good result from the design, you need personal put on the back burner. In the first and second cases , it turns out that the client does not know what he wants, so he needs a choice. But there is a way out.
The problem, of course, is more general in nature - not only the clients are to blame for their being clients. Many designers in the post-Soviet space have also become designers, as clients have learned from clients themselves (what is there to hide is such). This raises a large number of related questions about the competence of each other. But nothing prevents to make attempts of mutual education.
For example, by making a store redesign, you can analyze its performance and tell the customer something like the following: “We made you a redesign, which over the course of a year increased your conversion by 400% and brought a lot of money. We estimate that an additional redesign will be able to bring this figure up to 1000%. ” Thus, it is possible to make a “good” design gradually.
A responsibility
There are situations when a client is willing to pay for the detailed elaboration of several concepts, which should cost quite a lot, and I would not call it a different whim than with whim (except for cases where the client or the decision maker, as I wrote above, does not know what he wants). In general, it disciplines - even if the client then, says that all the garbage done, let's repeat, he was warned in advance what he was unobtrusively informed about. Although, using this approach, most often you need to look back and ask yourself - did I follow the chosen concept and did this design really meet the needs of the client and its target audience ...
Returning to the topic, I want to clarify that for each design problem you can come up with many solutions (concepts), but there is no point in orienting some mythical “several options” - the chosen concept is trivially stated at the meeting with the client after proposing various options (yes with a client who knows what his buyer wants, who can determine the compliance of the chosen direction with the policy of his company, who makes decisions).
But what if the complexity of the project and the risks are very high?
User avkoval gave a link to a wonderful lecture about another development method (including design products), which is called “ set based design ”. Its essence is that several concepts are being developed in parallel and no final decision is made until the very last moment . This allows you to look at the whole system and make really balanced decisions, based on a large number of really worthy alternatives. For example, you can create several highly developed concepts of the site and then transfer the ideas you like from one concept to another (it is important to correctly allocate resources and have them).
This method will be very expensive, but for large and serious projects it will provide savings (perhaps not instantly, but in the future). So, at the lecture an interesting example was given when the printer developer calculated that in order to increase the number of sales they need to implement the function of removing red eyes from photos. The team had 12 weeks and 2 algorithms for this: simple, but working, and complex, advanced, but which may lead to failures or not be completed in time. Which option to choose a team? The correct answer is both! It is necessary to work out both concepts, because simple in any case will be ready in time, and difficult, if not ready in time, then at least in the future will give the company an advantage. Thus, in the long run, this is a saving - if not money, then time is exactly what is even more important in business (see the lecture below for details) is very interesting.
So one or many?
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. You need to choose the right concept based on budget, risk, level of complexity of business tasks, scale and your resources.
Related Literature:
- This topic was casually touched upon in the book by Mark Boulton “The Practical Guide to Designing for the Web” (unfortunately, only in the original), and so sunk into the soul that he decided to expel it only with an article.
- §167, "Kovodstvo" A. Lebedev .
- Lecture " Competing On The Basis Of Speed " (Google video).
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/136556/
All Articles