"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."
""Why not do something like this?" a PM said, showing his badly drawn sketch of an alternative design. 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. 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."
Many designers present multiple solutions to provide stakeholders with choices, but time constraints force concentrated effort on a single preferred design. The preferred design typically receives research, user-behavior grounding, and articulated business impact. Secondary options often become superficial afterthoughts created merely to appear as alternatives rather than strategic approaches. This practice leaves designers vulnerable because AI can rapidly produce similar-looking options, making shallow alternatives indistinguishable from automated outputs. Stakeholders may then misinterpret token alternatives as genuine strategic choices. Designers must communicate the rationale behind chosen designs and ensure alternatives are developed with equal strategic intention.
Read at Medium
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]