"In that moment, I realized I hadn't conveyed why I'd chosen my alternative designs in the first place. That's one place where many designers struggle silently. Many designers don't present just one solution - they present multiple. Design agencies often follow the rule of three for exactly this reason. The idea of giving stakeholders a choice and embracing options sounds good."
"But designers nowadays don't have time to give equal thought to 3 design solutions. So here's what happens: designers might think strategically about their preferred option. They'll ground it in research, connect it to user behavior, and articulate the business impact. Then, they'll come up with alternatives, which are afterthoughts created to give stakeholders "options" rather than genuine strategic approaches. And in an age where AI can generate design options instantly, that's becoming a critical vulnerability."
Designers often present multiple solutions to give stakeholders options, but limited time leads to one well-developed solution and weaker afterthought alternatives. The favored option typically receives strategic grounding in research, user behavior, and business impact. The alternative options are frequently superficial, created mainly to appear as choices rather than to offer genuine strategic approaches. This practice creates a vulnerability as instant, AI-generated design variations make shallow alternatives more obvious. Stakeholders may mistake poorly justified alternatives for equally valid options, undermining design decisions and obscuring the rationale behind the recommended solution.
Read at Medium
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]