Why you should always review multiple designs
Variety is said to be the spice of life, except when it comes to most design reviews. Too many design reviews are simply show and tells, with added feedback. A designer will take everyone through their proposal, showcasing / intent checking their chosen design and explaining why it’s such a great fit for the problem. Alternative designs are rarely presented because in the modern world of tech, where the doctrine of moving fast and breaking things still reigns supreme, reviewing multiple designs can be seen as wasteful, as unnecessarily slowing things down. Why waste time reviewing different design paths if you have a design that appears to fit the bill?
This is a shame because when it comes to design reviews, variety really should be the spice of life. Reviewing multiple designs helps to encourage divergent thinking and can prevent a team (and designer) from becoming fixated on a single solution. It also helps to shine a light on the creative design process. By showcasing alternative designs the audience can see that design is not just about picking the first solution that comes to mind. Design is about exploring the art of the possible. Design is about coming to the best solution, not just the first solution. By reviewing multiple designs stakeholders are visibly reminded that there is always more than one way to solve a problem.
I recently attended a really interesting talk by Margret Schmidt, VP of UX Design & Research at Roku (who develop TV streaming products) about how Roku designs for simplicity and delight. It was fascinating to get an insight into Roku’s design process, which included baking multiple designs into their review process. Designers at Roku are expected to present at least 3 design variants at a design review:
- A ‘mild’ design utilising existing design patterns and paradigms.
- A ‘medium’ design exploring a more delightful user experience.
- A ‘wild’ design that explores really blue sky thinking.
I love this approach because whilst it keeps the number of design variants to a sensible number, it encourages creativity, it encourages experimentation and it exposes teams (not just designers) to alternative designs. Most importantly it results in better products (certainly for Roku), delivering better experiences for users. Even if a ‘wild’ or ‘medium’ design is not technically feasible, there might be aspects that can be incorporated. Reviewing multiple designs will spark important conversations that otherwise would never happen.
Too many companies see exploring alternative designs as slow and wasteful. It’s therefore refreshing to see a company that really appreciates the value that design exploration brings to the product development process. So next time you’re working on a design I challenge you to think about what a ‘mild’, ‘medium’ and ‘wild’ design would look like, and of course to review these designs with your team and with your stakeholders. By bringing some variety to your design reviews you can spark important conversations, you can help your team and stakeholders to better understand the creative design process and you can ultimately deliver better products and services for your users.
See also
- Why you should always prototype & user test multiple designs (UX for the Masses)
- A peek at Roku’s “mild to wild” design strategy (Fast Company)
Image credits
Originally published at https://www.uxforthemasses.com on May 20, 2025.
