When it comes to web design, a standard practice in the industry is to create multiple mock-ups of a design and have the client choose which one they think is most suitable like the most. What usually happens is that rejected designs get thrown away or stored deep down in the murky depths of a hard drive somewhere to never be seen again.
Why We Should Show-off Rejected Designs
Something I want to do on a personal level is bring the rejected designs back and maybe even show them as part of my portfolio. A lot of time is spent creating multiple designs for clients and some rejected work turns out to be some of our favourite pieces so why wouldn’t we want to show them off? Often, these designs aren’t actually ‘rejected’ but another is preferred and even when they are flat out rejected, it doesn’t mean that it is a result of poor design. Remember that visual design is subjective.
Showing off rejected designs also give an opportunity to demonstrate what happens behind the scenes as the process of web design for a project gets underway. Generally different approaches are taken for different designs so it give others a chance to explore the different thought processes and a variety of creatives aiming to achieve the same goal.
Why We Shouldn’t Show-off Rejected Designs
Of course, there is the other side of the coin and only display the work that gets accepted. After all, what is the point of showing something that will never be used? Will anyone care about the work that didn’t make it? Perhaps that the work that gets tossed to one side should remain there until we stumble upon it in the future, consigned to only a gleeful smile as memories of the work come flooding back.
Some designs that don’t make the grade, at least according to the clients, have some great ideas and rather than present them in a ‘rejected’ design, it can be a good idea to take any ideas and use them in future projects. This way, it is presented as a final piece of work that is live and in use and maybe has more credibility.
Case Study
For the redesign of Meon Villas I created two strong designs that I felt met the brief very well but both had very different approaches.
Rejected Design
Below is the rejected homepage design for Meon. I remember that this version was almost rejected immediately without an explanation of why and with almost no chance for me to explain my reasoning behind it all and honestly I would have thought that it would have the opposite effect due to the bold background imagery.
Approved Design
Perhaps the reason that this was chosen as the final design was because it is very similar to our existing websites (Hayes and Jarvis, Sovereign, Citalia, and Thomson Worldwide) in that it has the search panel on the left with an area for rotating images on the right. This is one of the reasons that I was disappointed that the ideas behind the rejected design weren’t explored at all. It was designed with the idea of doing something different, taking another approach and would have been very interesting to see how it would have done in contrast to the ’safe’ option.
This is a perfect example of a rejected design that I, as a designer, preferred. Especially considering that it was trying to do something new by having the search panel go from left to right rather than down the left.
Conclusion
As designers, we should be proud of our work that wasn’t accepted or at least some of it. Whether we proudly display it is up to personal preference but it is certainly something that I have not seen on a single portfolio.
It’s an idea that I would like to see explored and I will certainly consider it when I redesign my portfolio soon.
I see why they chose the one they did. One large photo is more compelling than the three smaller ones. You can more easily place yourself in the photo. The deep warm blues of the approved version remind one of the aegean and caribbean seas. The information feels more organized. While the “big bold imagery” on the rejected one is completely obscured by the information box. (Honestly I didn’t see it at all until you referred to it). The first one is confusing in contrast, it has too many focal points. I don’t know where to look first. I don’t feel the approved one is ’safer’, I think it’s far more compelling.
I deal with a number of clients that are just starting out or depend on the designer to provide all of the creative. There is often very little input, until you provide a layout that they do not like. Thats when the client suddenly becomes a member of the creative staff.. It can be a bit annoying as gathering input on a clients tastes is vital. I personally hate going back and forth with someone that has no idea what they want.
Its a part of the job though and with nearly 10 years in, it has gotten easier to deal with the rejections, but the thing that burns me is how much time is lost between concept & completion. Great article. I actually recycle rejected designs for other clients, massive time saver // One mans trash is anothers treasure.
I hate to say it, but I think the approved option is better. While I can appreciate your desire to try something different, the client may not share your enthusiasm for experimentation.
I think your preferred option lacks vertical symmetry across the 4 rows of containers. Each row shares no vertical alignment with the other rows, giving it an off-balance “clutter” that clients would likely have difficulty articulating. Judith attempted to describe it above by saying “Too many focal points. I don’t know where to look first.” This problem is not present in the approved option — although the footer kind of lives in its own little world. The copyright info could be shortened and placed the left section and the width set to align with the column above, and the footer links could be place in the middle section, with the “email offers” area expanding to the width of “special offers” above. But now I’m just being a nit-picker!
The sort of multi-step form could also be a bit confusing to users, as each section appears to be it’s own unique form, but really they are all part of the same action. The arrows are subtle, and the idea that this is all one form isn’t conveyed until you see the single form button at the far right. This might be more obvious if the rest of the page wasn’t already establishing the idea that everything exists within it’s own container, in a row of several containers.
One thing I haven’t made clear in this example is that the approved design has been through multiple iterations and has been tweaked to the way it currently is. Something that I didn’t get the chance to do with the rejected version.
A trick I was taught is to create a doggy design that the client can easily dismiss – therefore increasing your chances they’ll opt for that “non-safe” option.
However, I prefer all work that is presented to a client to look professional! The result… they’ll often go with the design I consider second best. It’s a shame.
Great article Tom. This is something we have been exploring and brought to another level. Check out http://www.projectnever.com if interested.