Charlotte Knibbs

As a web coder, I fully sympathise. It gets even more fun when our work kicks in for websites. We get the final designs, HTML wireframes if we’re lucky, and breathe life into the design skin.

A lot of pride goes into making a scaleable, stable and efficient site. A lot of love into every AJAX call back, every line of thread-safe code and each database call. I thoroughly enjoy seeing a beautiful design become a living thing. But doing it properly takes time. Just like you said: You have it done right, cheap or fast – pick two. Most clients don’t appreciate what a slow, expensive task coding is.

There’s an old saying – “The better something works, the more you take it for granted”. Good coders get little recognition, we’re just doing what we’re supposed to and get little gratitude apart from the odd “Why is it taking so long? It’s only a button!” I for one love bad coders because it makes clients actually appreciate us.

My point? I’m not sure – perhaps I would like to beg the client to also spare us a thought. After the relatively exciting part of planning the look and sifting gorgeous design after gorgeous design I can imagine the build is frustrating. But cut us some slack… I have a friend who is an awesome hacker and could destroy your credit rating.

Charlotte, I have to disagree with this:

‘Observe the quote “You can have the project done on time, done on budget, done properly. You can only have two.”’

Although it may often be the case that all three objects aren’t met, it is absurd to suggest this be the norm. Projects can be done on time, within budget and done ‘properly’—of course the latter is subjective, so I will define ‘properly’ as mutual satisfaction shared by the designer and client.

Why do you say to prospective clients, on behalf of our industry, that only two of the three are to be expected, when it is simply not true? I don’t think this speaks well of our profession. If this mentality is adopted by designers, it leads to poor standards, and if by clients, to low expectations.

Designers with poor standards and clients with low expectations will not lead to good design, and this is to the detriment of both parties and the wider industry.

@JamesHunter I think what charlie is writing about is both typical & topical.

I think it’s somewhat idealist to think that everything can be achieved for both parties. In my experience it’s fairly common during fixed-price projects for conflicts to arise.

It’s another part of our business, the client will always want more (projects always evolve) & part of our role is to ensure that we push back. It’s a game of cat & mouse.

I prefer to take a more agile approach. Predicted costs upfront, transparency on how the project is progressing & regular meetings. It’s not for everyone & I may lost a few projects on the way, but at least I’m not submitting to Clients from Hell

James, with all due respect, you had to change the definition of ‘properly’ in order to make it apply. Properly means *properly*… by everyone’s standards. That’s what good design is.

Also, obviously, there will be projects that come in on time, on budget and be done properly, but I wrote the article based on the majority of work which unfortunately won’t have the luxury of meeting all three at once, and in that case you have to pick two.

Which two, are what define you as designer.

Are you saying that if a client had specified a budget and told to create something, that you’d come up with the same quality outcome regardless of whether you had a week or a month as a timeline?
I find that hard to believe.

The best designs are created when flexible co-operative clients work with designers who both want the same things: the best possible outcome. But as I try to point out in my post, if you stunt a designer by nagging for deadlines then you will get a sub-par outcome.

@James Hunter

what Charlotte described is the major central tenet of project management. Any project plan is a compromise between the three factors of quality, time and cost. If a client wants to change the spec mid project then they must appreciate that one of those three will change too. I get the feeling that design, just like coding, is open to so much “tweaking” by the client once work has commenced. You wouldn’t go down to a building site and screw with the architects plans after the first floor is complete.

To claim that compromise is somehow renaging on your artistic integrity is a little naive. Don’t take my word for it… Ask any proper project manger. They’ll be happy to delve into horrible detail on the subject.

@Jamie Davis

“You wouldn’t go down to a building site and screw with the architects plans after the first floor is complete.”

That is maybe the best analogy I have ever heard used to describe this situation! I love it!!

Also I feel so much worse for web designers on this subject because in a client’s eyes it is ‘easy to hide bad code’ therefore SO much more difficult to argue spending the time getting it right.

@George

I understand that the quote describes a typical situation, and agree that my stance is idealistic. I think the majority of us would agree to aiming to achieve the ideals: on time, on budget and done ‘properly’.

I agree that clients need to be aware that the ideal isn’t always possible in reality—and certainly not for them to ‘rush’ design, as Charlotte points out. If Charlotte’s stance is that ideals cannot not always—and are frequently not— met, I think this should be made clearer to the reader, perhaps with practical suggestions on how clients can help the project meet these ideals.

I think your approach is an admirable one. If time is taken at the start of a project to get a water-tight proposal written up—including the brief, estimates, timeline etc—there is a great chance that the project will be meet the ideals once delivered. If the client ‘wants more’ than what has been proposed and agreed by both parties, then allowances may have to be made for budget, deadline etc.

@Charlotte

I defined ‘properly’ because you didn’t, for which I don’t blame you, because that could be an entire separate article in itself, the verbosity of such a discussion probably wouldn’t benefit clients in a short guide on how to be a good one—i.e. they probably wouldn’t read it. Not to be pedantic, but ‘properly means *properly*’ doesn’t satisfy me. Who is ‘everyone’? Are the intended audience included? People aren’t targeted by the work, but whom have to look at it?

As I already said, I think a project being on-time and on-budget—and whatever ‘properly’ means to you—is something to strive for, not a luxury. I’m writing based on my experiences that have found it to be possible more often than not when the project is preceded by a thorough proposal. Again, this is just based on my experiences.

I think whether you value effort spent on a watertight proposal, and your standards, define you as a designer, not which of your three criteria you choose to compromise.

‘Are you saying that if a client had specified a budget and told to create something, that you’d come up with the same quality outcome regardless of whether you had a week or a month as a timeline? I find that hard to believe.’

The same quality outcome? No, but the quality of service should be the same over a week or a month. Two ‘identical’ briefs with different timelines—one week and one month in your example—are not identical briefs. If the same quality of service was provided across two different timelines, then the ‘quality’ of my ‘work’ would be the same but perhaps not the outcome; as you rightly point out, it cannot be expected that one week and one month can yield the same results.

‘But as I try to point out in my post, if you stunt a designer by nagging for deadlines then you will get a sub-par outcome.’

Agreed. If the work or deadline aren’t as proposed in the brief/proposal, then the client has no leg to stand on, and a new brief has to be written and signed off. I think it’s important to stress the importance of a thorough, agreed proposal before starting work on a project.

@Jamie

Of course If time, cost and quality are detailed realistically in the plan, which is then agreed upon and signed off, we can strive to meet all three, and not just two. If problems occur, or what the client wants changes—which as Charlotte points out, is a frequent occurrence—I agree, there has to be a compromise. Then why not point this out as something that could be prevented by working closely with the designer on a proposal, rather than presenting it as the inevitable?

Charlotte I hope you understand my criticisms come as your article seems to be directed at clients in general—potentially my clients too—and not solely your own clients.

@James

This was supposed to be a quick light-hearted blog post about common mistakes made by clients. Nothing more. I didn’t want to create a huge blog post giving lengthy practical suggestions to clients about how to meet these ideals because then I would be being specific to certain situations, and then if I missed any out I would come under further scrutiny for not including them.

I actually said in the article in the first section under the heading *Know what you want first – including budget!* that you should iron out the details in the brief.

I specifically made it the first point because I think it is the most significant. So yes, I do think that it’s more important than choosing which of the 3 you would compromise, but I did already say that you will only need to decide which of the 3 you would compromise in the MINORITY of cases.

As you will learn, some clients will alter the brief as the design process goes on so it’s not always possible to have a concrete brief from start to finish.

I also said that you will be defined as a designer by which of the 3 you choose. This is true! If you are put in the position where you need to compromise one of them but you decide time and money are more important than creating something brilliant then quite frankly, you are crap, and you deserve the bad clients you get.

That was my point.

Not quite sure where you picked it up, but I never said creating good design was a luxury and I certainly never said that it wasn’t worth striving for! Quite the opposite.

When you design things properly then it will be good design by everyone’s standards. And I said everyone, because I mean *everyone who comes in contact with it*… whether deliberate target audience or someone who just happens across it. Design background or not.
I guess what you were actually looking for me to define is taste.
Someone may not like a design, but it is GOOD design when the only faults that can be picked are whether it is to your liking. Helvetica being a perfect example of that. You couldn’t possibly say that it is a badly designed font… but you could say it is not your taste?