Yesterday, I mentioned why the attempt to Frankenstein designs (Frankendesigns?) fails so often. In response, Yuri Victor pointed to this interesting Paul Rand essay on “The Politics of Design.” Rand explains why demanding many solutions to a problem merely leads to waste and confusion.
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. These may include a number of visual and/or verbal concepts, an assortment of layouts, a variety of pictures and color schemes, as well as a choice of type styles. He needs the reassurance of numbers and the opportunity to exercise his personal preferences. He is also most likely to be the one to insist on endless revisions with unrealistic deadlines, adding to an already wasteful and time-consuming ritual. Theoretically, a great number of ideas assures a great number of choices, but such choices are essentially quantitative. This practice is as bewildering as it is wasteful. It discourages spontaneity, encourages indifference, and more often than not produces results which are neither distinguished, interesting, nor effective. In short, good ideas rarely come in bunches.
The designer who voluntarily presents his client with a batch of layouts does so not out prolificacy, but out of uncertainty or fear. He thus encourages the client to assume the role of referee. In the event of genuine need, however, the skillful designer is able to produce a reasonable number of good ideas. But quantity by demand is quite different than quantity by choice. Design is a time-consuming occupation. Whatever his working habits, the designer fills many a wastebasket in order to produce one good idea. Advertising agencies can be especially guilty in this numbers game. Bent on impressing the client with their ardor, they present a welter of layouts, many of which are superficial interpretations of potentially good ideas, or slick renderings of trite ones…
Expertise in business administration, journalism, accounting, or selling, though necessary in its place, is not expertise in problems dealing with visual appearance. The salesman who can sell you the most sophisticated computer typesetting equipment is rarely one who appreciates fine typography or elegant proportions. Actually, the plethora of bad design that we see all around us can probably be attributed as much to good salesmanship as to bad taste.
Justin Jackson
on 24 Nov 09Presenting multiple options has become common practice in design, to the point where it’s almost expected.
Often people want to see “everything that’s possible.” The point on them becoming “the referee” is bang on, and puts the designer on the wrong side of the equation.
Mike
on 24 Nov 09Everyone comes up with multiple ideas while looking for one, why not reuse those that don’t make the cut to extract the best out of them? If you thought of them, that’s because you liked something from it.
The design explorations show just how useful these ideas are, they help produce the next set of ideas and ultimately the idea that makes the cut.
Kyle Faber
on 24 Nov 09i tend to disagree mike,
just because you had thought of it, doesn’t mean it was necessarily a good idea.
in fact, in-house – we usually design multiple idea’s and versions which may, or may not, be incorporated into a greater final version. sometimes it’s a matter of taking a conceptual idea and putting onto your screen to realize it was in fact, craptacularly thought out.
when a client asks us for multiple options and designs, we kindly tell them that it is against our practice and corporate policy to work that way, as it hinders deadlines and creative processes. if they choose that they still want the multitudes, we then kindly inform them that it will be added into their budget. they typically refer back to our first explanation and accept it.
we have reviewed the numbers, and as it turns out, we've only had to go back and make major changes on 1 in 25 designs. the rest are smaller issues that you will usually encounter due to preference issues.to me, that says something about the process – IT WORKS! and also the designer.
cheers.
EH
on 24 Nov 09Let the expert be the expert.
Anonymous Coward
on 24 Nov 09You’re blog post are starting to become to dang loooooong.
I suspect that’s why people are commenting less than before. Because fewer people are actually reading your entire blog post
Travis L
on 24 Nov 09I find it very fitting that your attempt to Frankenstein two words together (Frankenstein designs = Frankendesigns?) failed so miserably. Just like what you were describing! Well put essay. I’d like to counter the AC about blog length—I find the increased length yields much better content. Keep it up!
YL
on 24 Nov 09Came across this Steve Jobs interview regarding Paul Rand, in which he speaks of the same point from his perspective. video link
James Gill
on 25 Nov 09Also agree – the longer posts are great. It’s always a pleasure to read the thoughts of Paul Rand.
The best ideas come from iteration after iteration, not picking the best from a bunch and running saying “done”.
Jaap
on 25 Nov 09Often people don’t know what they want until they see it.
Pies
on 25 Nov 09Very good link, thanks.
I think the problem stems both from lack of confidence in the abilities of the designer, and lack of understanding of the creative process. In most cases I’d much rather take the third iteration of a single design over a choice between first iterations of three different designs.
Anders
on 25 Nov 09One way to do it, if done with style, is to go through the iterations that led to the design. When the customer is given the design with some kind of history/context he’ll see the design in a different way. BTW i’m not even a “creative” designer “just” an electronics designer.
Daniel Lewandowski
on 25 Nov 09Anders, I agree. Rand’s famous logo books are a great example of giving clients a glimpse into the creative process. When there is a strong rationale for a solution, it’s hard to disagree. His succinct and logical style of writing fit perfectly to the presentation of these books, many of which he simply mailed to the client and didn’t even present in person!
While it is common practice now to give multiple examples, his confidence in his own solution is inspiring. I think today there’s a lack of education and confidence on the designer AND clients’ part. Plus, Rand always worked directly with the decision maker, not a representative, which is unfortunately not the case for most designers nowadays.
To look through a few, visit the bottom section of this page: http://www.paul-rand.com/identity.shtml
Enjoy!
Darrel
on 25 Nov 09The more design variations you end up showing seems to be in direct correlation with the vagueness of the project brief/goals/objectives.
It’s usually a sign that things moved into the visual exploration stage too early in the process. Proper design requires properly defined objectives to design against. And once those are properly defined, the range of potential successful design solutions is narrowed significantly.
Brandy Thompson
on 26 Nov 09The Article has tremendous potential for extracting information. The Length has generated more interest to read on. The ideas presented in the design explorations are indeed praiseworthy. Ideas should be rightfully incorporated in the designs meticulously . Thanks for the Nice Article.
Post Industrial
on 27 Nov 09In our agency, the Project Managers, give me the most grief when I insist on presenting the client with ONE design. I tell the client they have the power to veto the logo if they don’t like it. I can’t remember the last time that happened. Try it sometime—see what kind of resistance you get from the client. Of course, this only works if your on top of your game…
James
on 30 Nov 09Anders: > One way to do it, if done with style, is to go through the iterations that led to the design. When the customer is given the design with some kind of history/context he’ll see the design in a different way.
I was the developer on a project where this happened. With good designers and well-thought out designs, this may be enlightening. But in this case, it was painful to watch. The client didn’t want to see the iterations the designer had gone through. What use is that when looking at the final product and seeing what works/doesn’t, and what needs to change? It just wasted their time and was annoying to everyone involved (except the designer, who was hell-bent on showing off their many revisions).
Now, I don’t doubt that for better designers, seeing their work in progress is neat and may spark more creative thought and criticism. But for more mundane designers, it seems unnecessary and a bit narcissistic. I can only speak from experience, but I wish I had those 45 minutes back :(
Arnold
on 01 Dec 09I think it was in the Steve Jobs interview that Paul Rand said if you want more than one option, you should hire multiple studios. I’ve always liked that idea.
This discussion is closed.