I have been a professional web and graphic designer, as of this writing, for 20 years (and an “amateur” artist since I was first capable of putting crayon to paper). When I first started my design business I recognized pretty quickly that there is a tension that is tricky to work out: both the designer and the client have an impulse towards wanting to control the process, and both can make a reasonable argument for doing so. The client, naturally, hired the designer because they have a specific design need that is unique to who they are, what they need the design to communicate, and who they are trying to reach. Thus, they would argue, they should be in the driver’s seat with regard to the design process. The designer, however, can argue that they were hired by the client because design is their forte, having some combo of skill, talent, education, and experience that makes them ostensibly better than the client at conceptualizing and executing design ideas.
It took me a little while, but ultimately I settled on an approach that seems to reconcile this tension reasonably well, an approach I call “macro-micro.” I begin each project by meeting (ideally in person) with the client and conducting an interview, wherein I learn who they are, and what they are trying to accomplish with the design (be it a logo, a website, or what have you). This is the “macro” context that the client is providing for me. If the client is inclined, in this phase, to want to impose specific “micro” design ideas (aka, “we really want a dancing monkey in the lower left corner of each page”) I try to gently coax them back to the “macro” of communicating their needs, goals, etc, in broad strokes. If there is resistance, I explain the “macro-micro” concept to them and keep my fingers crossed that they get the concept and can comfortably move forward with this approach (or else, unless I’m truly desperate for income, I turn down the gig, assuming we haven’t yet signed on the dotted line…in which case I buckle in for a rough ride). The only “micro” I cede to them is if they already have some specific “branding” elements to which they are categorically wedded (color palate, logo, etc). Even here, though, I need to ascertain in the macro process if they are truly wedded to those identity elements, or if they are clutching them by force of habit or out of fear of change, which is a very common issue.
Once I have a good sense about their wants and needs from the “macro” interview phase, I then begin the “micro” phase, which entails processing the information culled from our dialog through my design sensibilities, and coming up with visual mockups. This is followed by the “refinement” phase — showing the mockups to the client, getting feedback, then wash, rinse, and repeat (if necessary) until the client is satisfied with the final product. In most cases, there are only one or two rounds of refinements until I have created a final design that the client is happy with.
I have applied a variant of this “macro-micro” approach in developing the mobile sanctuary project wherein I (by virtue of my extensive experience with homelessness) represent the “client” and a local architect named Owen Kramme is the designer. Given my design background, however, there is a bit more of a collaborative dynamic between Owen and I. There is actually compelling recent research that suggests that two creatives working together tend to produce the best results. The research theorizes that one person in isolation doesn’t benefit by the kind of organic one-on-one feedback and challenge that we are developmentally wired for, whereas power dynamics and other social complexities come into play that hinder creativity when more than two people are involved in the creative process (aka, the dreaded “design by committee”). As such, a creative pairing appears to be the sweet spot for producing the best results.
The process has thus far been a rewarding and dynamic validation of the “duo” approach to design and development. As of this writing we have produced an elegant and novel design concept that hits all the needed marks. Once the concept has been fully fleshed out, the next phase will be to present mockups of the design to the Zarim and other relevant parties for feedback, followed by iterations of the design if necessary. This process should, ultimately, strike the right balance between efficient, fruitful creative development and community involvement.